Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. At a time when the United States faces serious foreign policy challenges, from tensions with Iran to instability in Venezuela, and rumors of arresting Cuba’s Raul Castro, you would think members of Congress would be eager to get answers from one of the administration’s most important cabinet officials.
Instead, Americans got a glimpse of what Congress has increasingly become.
After sharply criticizing Rubio, California Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove left the hearing room before he had the chance to answer her questions. Meanwhile, California Representative Sara Jacobs spent part of her time asking Rubio whether his shoes fit, referencing an old story involving President Trump giving shoes to staff members.
Rubio responded by calling Congress a “circus.”
It is hard to disagree.
The problem is not partisan disagreement. Congress was designed for disagreement. The problem is that too many members appear more interested in creating social media content than conducting serious oversight. Hearings that should be focused on policy increasingly seem designed to produce thirty-second clips that can be posted online with captions about who got “destroyed” or “owned.”
That was never the purpose of Congress.
When C-SPAN first began televising House proceedings in 1979, the goal was transparency. Americans would be able to see their government at work without relying entirely on journalists or newspaper accounts.
Watch congressional hearings from the 1980s and early 1990s and the difference is striking. Members spent more time discussing legislation, budgets, foreign policy, and constitutional questions. Political grandstanding certainly existed, but it was not the dominant feature of every hearing. The focus remained on governing.
But today, that incentive structure has changed, especially with the rise of social media.
Members know a dramatic exchange can generate millions of views online. Some members use it to boost their political careers to announce a Senate, Governor, or even Presidential run. The result is that hearings increasingly resemble performances rather than investigations.
Now contrast this with the Supreme Court. During the pandemic, the Court began allowing live audio of oral arguments. Yet the Court has consistently refused to allow cameras into the courtroom despite years of pressure from transparency advocates. Many people view that as outdated. Without videos, maybe fewer people would watch. But the current digital age makes it difficult to see why new is better.
Congress provides a case study in what happens when that incentive structure takes over.
As a supporter of free speech, I generally favor more openness, not less. But this debate is not really about free speech. Nobody is suggesting congressional hearings should become secret. Transcripts, recordings, and press access could all remain available. The question is whether live television cameras have made Congress worse at performing its constitutional duties.
If the purpose of Congress is to legislate, deliberate, and oversee the executive branch, then the current system appears to be failing. Too often, lawmakers are rewarded not for asking the best questions, but for creating the most viral clips.
The People’s House should belong to the people, not the politician that wants to create a viral video.
If cameras are encouraging performance over substance, then perhaps it is time to reconsider whether they belong in the room at all.
