Congressional fatigue syndrome.

Some of my best friends are congressmen and women. Voicing that statement anywhere in the country today might well cause people to look at me askance. What? Friends with those inept and corrupt persons whose very mention draws an easy laugh from the audiences of the nightly talk shows? Friends among those whose names evoke instant hostility from the callers-in to the radio chat shows and instant sneers from the hosts ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Pat Buchanan?

Yes, friends. And friends who may not be here in Washington much longer. Every month Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, publishes what the editor calls the casualty list--the list of the members of Congress who are resigning or have announced that they are not going to run again. It grows longer and longer. So far this year, fifty-four members of the House of Representatives are leaving. The Senate majority leader, George Mitchell (D-Maine), has announced his resignation, as have such worthy senators as John Danforth (R-Mo.) and David Boren (D-Okla.).

In a conversation recently, Washington Post columnist David Broder said this exodus means that more than 50 percent of the next term congressmen and women will be first or second termers, persons with very little experience of the complicated legislative process. Many of them are from the elective class of '92, most of whom ran "against Washington." Except for a former governor and some new members with a history in state legislatures, Broder noted, it is hard to see how soon they will shake down as effective members, or if they will.

A number of the retiring members have more personal reasons for resigning--age, illness, the desire to spend more time with their families, etc.--but many are simply tired of the unearned cynicism about their role in public service and the abuse they must endure as a result of it. Criticism of Congress has a long history in the press of this country but today it seems to have become all-pervasive in the general populace. Check the letters columns of any newspaper or magazine. Check the comics pages.

Norman Ornstein, the American Enterprise Institute's expert on Congress and elections, tells me that the outlook for the composition of the next Congress is very discouraging. He finds no sense of an overall concern for the public good in the vision and campaign rhetoric of those challenging incumbents, and nothing that speaks of a long-term plan for government. There is an exploitation of institutions and a pandering to those who have brought false panaceas for our problems, false panaceas like term limits and the line item veto. Veteran members dedicated to public service will find it hard to serve with such newcomers.

Both the anti-establishment candidates and the public to which they appeal apparently have no sense of the Congress as an institution central to our democratic society. (The Perot notion of nationwide town meetings in which people would be polled about legislation is an example of this failure writ large.) Legislation and regulation are not the result of collected individual opinions but of the careful crafting of laws by means of collaborative effort, coalition, and compromise. The dictionary definition of an institution ("a well-established and structural pattern of behavior or relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture like the institution of marriage and the institution of the family") may be adapted to the Congress as the well-established and structured pattern and process of making laws, their applications, and regulations. Because the mass media cannot seem to cover process effectively but focus only on win-lose conflicts as newsworthy, a television-fed people has little information on which to evaluate lawmakers.

Ironically, some of the obstacles members of Congress encounter in achieving their legislative goals stem from well-meant efforts in the last thirty years to improve Congress. Well-meant nongovernmental influences like Common Cause and Ralph Nader's associates have helped to weaken the once-powerful chairman and committee system. Former president Gerald Ford, once a minority leader in the House, speaking to the National Press Club this spring, ruminated about the so-called reforms which he feels have caused the Congress to lose the ability to manage itself.

When the surge of well-intentioned liberals came ... they did away for all intents and purposes with seniority. They authorized the establishment of the multiplicity of subcommittees. I don't know, we've got more subcommittees than members now .... The people in authority no longer can run the institution.

When I first came to the Congress in 1949, Sam Rayburn ran the institution. And Joe Martin did almost as well. We ... got all the business done, including the Marshall Plan, [and] we adjourned July 4th. And the members of the House and Senate went home ... to get reacquainted with the constituents.... Another development that has weakened Congress in the last three decades is the immensely increased cost of running for a House or Senate seat. In one district I know of, a congressman could once hope to win with a campaign outlay of less than $30,000. Today he or she would need at least half a million dollars. Multiply that by tens and twenties to estimate the cost of winning a Senate seat. As a result incumbents must work at fund raising all year long--an effort which depletes their energy and certainly subtracts from the time and attention they can give to legislation and the needs of their constituents.

The outrageous cost of campaigning is caused, first of all, by the high price of television advertising--the only way in this media-ridden age one can hope to reach a majority of voters. A second cause is the ever-growing dependence on the new (and, I believe, largely unnecessary) profession of political consultants and polltakers. Thirty years ago candidates could rely on their well-honed political instincts and personal contact: through letters, visits with constituents, and public meetings. Today they are not taken seriously without "experts" at their sides.

Norman Ornstein sees the opprobrium in which both Congress and the executive branch are held as part of a worldwide malaise. There are weak leaders everywhere, he says, and scandals in government after government. Attacks on the establishment come from neo-fascists in Italy, neo-Nazis in Germany, radicals in the major English parties, and so on. "All over the world people are groping for a set of values in the post-cold war era," he says. "The thing they know is real is the global economy and the terrible uncertainty it brings. The company they go to work for today may be gone tomorrow; jobs that once meant lifetime security can now disappear over night." Frightened, fearful of the future, they turn against their representatives.

Can we save and reinvigorate our institutions and thus save democracy? Oddly enough, television, so much a source of our problems, may be an instrument of their solution. "Television can not only get people thinking; it can even get them to behave like citizens and grapple with the basic issues of a free society," writes E.J. Dionne (Washington Post, July 11). And, Dionne asks, "Why does it only happen during a spectacular murder case)" He argues that the coverage of the preliminary hearing in the Simpson trial proved that viewers could be interested in constitutional issues, understand various bits of evidence, and follow arguments based on facts. Can they do the same in regard to the political issues which affect their lives, like the healthcare debate? We can hope that some good producers will see the possibility and grasp the opportunity.