Why Congress failed to answer the national call for police bill

The bipartisan outcry over George Floyd's death was a chance for Congress to act on a policing overhaul. But the swift rise and fall of the police legislation suggests lawmakers are often driven more by party ideology than public opinion.

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Rep. Karen Bass, joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 25, 2020. Partisanship and polarization blocked Congress from responding to a national call for policing policy.

For a moment, Congress had a chance to act on a policing overhaul, mobilized by a national trauma and overwhelming public support. Those efforts have stalled now and seem unlikely to be revived in an election year.

It's the latest example of how partisanship and polarization on Capitol Hill have hamstrung Congress' ability to meet the moment and respond meaningfully to public opinion.

Major changes in policing policy appear likely to join gun control and immigration as social issues where even with Americans' overwhelming support, their elected representatives are unable or unwilling to go along, especially when President Donald Trump is indifferent or opposed.

"In this moment, as it was with gun violence and immigration reform, we don't know where the president really is," said Democrat Sen. Chris Coons, who weeks ago was expressing skepticism weeks ago about a breakthrough. "If this were the first time we were in this situation, I'd be more hopeful," he said then.

The bipartisan outcry over the deaths of George Floyd and other Black Americans appeared to be a chance for Congress to reshape its reputation. Polls showed nearly all Americans in a favor of some measure of change to the criminal justice system, and both chambers moved quickly to draft legislation.

There were common elements in the House Democratic proposal and the Senate Republican bill, including a national database of use-of-force incidents by law enforcement and restrictions on police chokeholds. But efforts to bridge the divides bogged down in a predictable fight over process and exposed again how little trust there is between the Senate's leaders, Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Mr. McConnell said Democrats refused to take him at his word that he was willing to negotiate over the final bill, and he pitched a supposedly fair and freewheeling floor debate. Mr. Schumer and other Democrats saw little that was genuine in Mr. McConnell's overtures, noting that during his tenure as GOP leader, the sharp-elbowed Kentucky Republican has permitted almost no open floor debate on legislation.

The swift rise and fall of prospects for the police bill showed how lawmakers are often driven more by the views of their parties' hard-liners than overall public opinion.

"The incentive structure is misaligned for compromise. That's the reality of it. Members are more likely to be rewarded electorally for representing their base primary voters than for reaching out to voters in the middle," said Michael Steel, who was a top aide to former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The giants of yesteryear are remembered as such because voters rewarded them for successfully legislating. And that just seems to be less and less the case."

Public support for some kind of policing overhaul after Mr. Floyd's death is overwhelming. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll shows 29% of Americans say the criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul, 40% say it needs major changes, and 25% say it needs minor changes.

There are other high-profile examples where public support has been unable to overcome partisanship in Congress – most notably on gun control. An AP-NORC survey from March 2019 found 83% of Americans in favor of a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers. Mr. Trump has also supported the idea.

But gun control legislation has gone nowhere in Washington.

The parties have also failed to make progress in overhauling immigration laws, despite broad public support. The most overwhelmingly popular measure – granting legal protections to young people brought to the United States illegally as children – has gotten caught in the fray, with hundreds of thousands of such "Dreamer" immigrants caught in legal limbo.

This gridlock has been exacerbated by Mr. Trump's reputation on Capitol Hill as an unreliable negotiating partner on major issues. On policing, he spoke generally about supporting legislation but exerted little political capital when the process hit a roadblock.

"To do really hard things you always need a president leaning in and engaged," said Brendan Buck, a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., during Mr. Trump's first two years in office. "And on the really hard things he has not shown a willingness to get engaged."

The police debate also suffered from the realities of the political calendar. With the Congressional Black Caucus, progressive activists and the civil rights community all calling the Republican bill too weak to be salvaged, some Democrats saw little incentive to give ground now when they might be able to get more if their party has sweeping successes in the November elections, now just over four months away.

"Why cut a bad deal now when you could potentially be in the driver's seat to write a real bill that effects real change in just a few months?" said Matt House, a former Schumer aide.

Some veteran lawmakers have found ways to navigate the fierce partisanship on Capitol Hill.

GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the committee's top Democrat, Patty Murray of Washington, have shepherded a major education policy rewrite and legislation to combat opioids through a McConnell-led Senate. They did so by building sweeping consensus among lawmakers in both parties before committee or floor action.

Mr. Murray said in an interview that there was little attempt to do that kind of behind-the-scenes work on policing.

"This didn't even smell like an attempt to get something done," Mr. Murray said. "The feeling that you want to accomplish something, that you want to get something done ... is a very different feeling than we saw with policing reform."

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP Director of Public Opinion Research Emily Swanson contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Congress failed to answer the national call for police bill
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today