Steering lawmakers toward consensus, not conflict

Turn on the news, open a newspaper or scroll through social media and you are likely to encounter some form of outrage involving Congress. Polarization in Congress feels like it’s at an all-time high, because it is.

But beneath all the bickering that generates viewers and clicks, there is a strong desire by most representatives to find consensus and produce results. Most members of Congress want to get things done for the American people.

Unfortunately, collaboration is not as exciting as conflict. And for members looking for talk-show invitations and fundraising opportunities, it does not generate nearly as much interest. It does, however, produce results and that’s what the public wants. The truth is, it’s possible to hold very strong ideological views and also be willing to work to find common ground and to model civil discourse.

As chair and vice chair of the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, we should know. We have spent the past three years learning a lot about what’s wrong with Congress and trying to figure out how to fix it. So far, the committee has passed over 100 recommendations to make Congress work more effectively and efficiently for the American people. The problems we have addressed are varied, but there is a common thread that runs throughout.

Hyper-polarization does not just lead to scenes occasionally fit for “The Jerry Springer Show,” it also reduces productivity. Most representatives are frustrated by their inability to do the jobs they were elected to do. They want a Congress that works but are stuck in an institution that is remarkably dysfunctional. Can it be fixed?

We can’t legislate behavioral change or pass rules telling members to be nice to each other. Social media and cable news, both of which exacerbate the rancor, are not going away. We also can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Congress is not going to reclaim some version of bipartisanship that supposedly existed in the past, nor should it try.

Congress can, however, change some of the systems that steer members toward conflict rather than consensus.

Figuring out how to do this required looking beyond Congress. Our committee reached out to experts in organizational psychology, conflict resolution, strategic negotiations and cultural change. We talked to consultants and coaches tasked with turning losing teams into winning ones. And we explored how some of America’s leading companies build collaborative work environments. Our goal was to learn from people with deep experience in working through various forms of dysfunction.

When we told people we were working to make Congress a more functional place, some responded with giggles — and some even offered prayers! But as our committee dug into the issues and listened to experts, we found some clear opportunities.

Freshman members, for example, complain about being separated by party for new member orientation. Rather than build relationships across the aisle, they are put into tribes from the get-go. Our committee has made recommendations to change that.

Members often lack opportunities to participate meaningfully in committee and bill-drafting processes. Days are spent pinballing between multiple committee hearings, votes on the House floor, meetings with constituents and scores of additional activities. Consequently, members too often use hearings as venues for political posturing, where the goal is to get in a good sound bite for social media rather than to engage substantively. Our committee has made proposals to try to de-conflict the congressional schedule and to improve committee processes.

Overloaded schedules also leave no room for relationship building, which is key to successful collaboration. Our committee has made recommendations to facilitate the ability of members to find common interests and exchange ideas.

Our goal was to transform broken systems that encourage conflict into practices that foster civility. By changing how we engage, we can establish a new set of norms and expectations for members of Congress.

We are also practicing what we preach. Our committee hearings are conducted roundtable style, with members and witnesses seated around a table together. This way, we are facing each other rather than looking at the back of each other’s heads. And rather than seat Democrats on one side of the table and Republicans on the other, committee members sit alternating by party. Members and witnesses are also allowed to engage in free-flowing discussion, where ideas and opinions are shared in a respectful and productive way. We can’t hope to solve our nation’s biggest problems unless we are willing to listen to each other and engage in all sides of complex issues.

The result of this work was the bipartisan approval of 25 recommendations that will create more opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on legislation, build civility and leadership training into the freshman orientation process, promote relationship building between members, and provide a platform for committee chairs and leaders to receive constructive feedback from members.

These recommendations are by no means a panacea for what ails Congress. American politics are partisan and when we are engaged in constructive conflict, that’s not a bad thing. The problem is that a lot of what happens in Congress today does not feel very constructive. But when members commit to working on problems together, it is possible to find a path forward.

■ U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, is chairman of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

■ U.S. Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., is vice chairman of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.