Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Someone Needs to Speak for Congress

I’ve been thinking about the communication problems in Congress, or perhaps more accurately, the complete lack of effective communication coming out of the House and Senate. We have a government full of elected officials, committees, leadership positions, press conferences, television appearances, and an endless supply of people willing to talk. Yet somehow, when it comes to explaining what Congress is doing, why it’s doing it, or what it hopes to accomplish, we’re often left scratching our heads.

Maybe it’s time to rethink how congressional leadership handles public communication.

Here’s an idea that might sound a little unconventional: What if the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader weren’t necessarily the primary public-facing representatives of their respective chambers?

Think about it. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have enormous administrative responsibilities. They’re responsible for managing legislative schedules, negotiating with members, building coalitions, counting votes, managing committees, navigating internal party politics, and trying to keep hundreds of elected officials moving in something resembling the same direction. These are demanding, full-time administrative and political jobs.

Why, then, do we automatically expect those same people to be the primary spokespeople for everything happening in Congress?

Being an effective legislative administrator and being an effective public communicator are two entirely different skill sets. One requires organizational ability, negotiation, patience, and political maneuvering. The other requires the ability to explain complicated issues, communicate a consistent message, think on your feet, and occasionally deliver an answer that doesn’t sound like it was written by a committee of attorneys.

Maybe we should stop pretending one person has to do both.

What if we created an official Speaker for the House, separate from the actual Speaker of the House? Someone whose primary responsibility would be public communication, explaining legislation, responding to the press, addressing the American public, and making sure people understand what’s happening inside that enormous building on Capitol Hill.

The same concept could apply to the Senate.

And here’s the interesting part: These positions wouldn’t necessarily have to go to the most senior members of Congress. In fact, maybe they shouldn’t. Perhaps there’s a junior representative with a background in communications, public relations, journalism, or simply an exceptional ability to explain things to ordinary people. Maybe there’s someone outside elected government altogether who has the experience, temperament, and credibility to handle the job.

We could even establish two official spokesperson positions for each chamber, one representing the Democratic caucus and one representing the Republican caucus. That way, neither party feels excluded, and the public gets to hear clearly identified perspectives from both sides.

Imagine that. Actual communication instead of waiting for whichever politician happens to grab a microphone that afternoon.

This wouldn’t eliminate political disagreements, nor should it. Republicans and Democrats are going to disagree. That’s the nature of representative government. But there’s a difference between disagreeing about policy and failing to communicate what you’re doing in the first place.

It would also give congressional leaders the opportunity to concentrate on their actual responsibilities rather than constantly being pulled into television interviews, press conferences, and the daily media circus. Let the Speaker manage the House. Let the Majority Leader manage the Senate. Let someone whose job is communication handle communication.

And before someone suggests this is just another layer of unnecessary government bureaucracy, consider how much time and energy is currently wasted trying to coordinate messaging across dozens of politicians, each with their own interpretation of what the party should be saying.

A little organization might actually save everyone some time.

There’s also something to be said for consistency. The American public shouldn’t have to piece together congressional policy from cable news appearances, social media posts, competing press releases, and whatever sound bite happens to make the evening news. We should have a reliable, recognizable source of information explaining what Congress is doing and why.

Of course, there’s one important distinction. These spokespeople shouldn’t become party propagandists. Their job should be to communicate, not manufacture narratives. They should be able to explain what their respective caucuses support, acknowledge disagreements, answer difficult questions, and occasionally admit when something hasn’t gone according to plan.

I realize that last part might be asking a little much from Washington.

But seriously, perhaps we need to reconsider what congressional leadership actually means in the modern era. We have an increasingly complicated government communicating with an increasingly impatient public through a media environment that rewards outrage, confrontation, and 15-second sound bites.

Maybe the answer isn’t having our busiest legislative leaders spend even more time in front of cameras.

Maybe it’s giving communication the same organizational importance we give legislation.

Congress doesn’t necessarily need more people talking. It needs people who know how to communicate.

And if we’re going to spend our time arguing about who should lead the House and Senate, perhaps we should also spend a little time figuring out who should be responsible for explaining what the hell they’re doing.

Because somewhere between the Capitol and the American living room, the message seems to keep getting lost.

And considering these people work for us, perhaps it’s about time somebody made sure we were actually being kept in the conversation.