CLASS DISMISSED:

Reframing Political Bias In Congress

Sam Geduldig

The critically acclaimed play, Wicked, offers a reminder that broadly presented narratives are
generally too readily accepted, despite the fact that they’re often created to sell a specific
agenda on behalf of the person or interest group telling the story. The longer that narrative is
unchallenged, the more difficult it is to reframe, even when it’s vital to do so.

Serving as the prequel to the Wizard of Oz, but released decades later, Wicked is about the
difficult upbringing of the witch of the West, who in her later years becomes “malevolent”—
or the stereotypically ghoulish character whom audiences have been programmed to hate.

As a child, she was bullied for things outside of her control. The “good witch” of the East, as
she was portrayed in Oz, was nothing of the kind—in fact, she was responsible for tormenting
her “wicked” counterpart. Despite earnest attempts to be part of the “in crowd,” the witch
of the West was snubbed as inferior and rejected.

Of course, Oz is a fictional place. But to many Americans, Washington, DC — our country’s

But let’s not mince words. We’re talking about bias. Bias in American politics is largely
determined by race, sex, religion, and of course, political affiliation. It is also based on class.
Specifically, members of Congress who run for election, win, and represent districts
populated by lower income, less educated, and less healthy constituents, are often deemed
by each party and the apparatus that supports and analyzes Congress to be “extreme.” Which
really just encapsulates the range of social dissonance assumed by elite cohorts in Washington
(note: by “elite,” we mean Washington’s academic, media, and lobbying establishment).

Meanwhile, members of Congress from wealthier districts earn adoration and support from
political elites. They are dubbed as more serious, thoughtful, and “moderate,” titles that
signal to important people that one possesses a perspicacious temperament worthy of
respect. In short, the “moderates” have just the right mix of education, viewpoints, and
socio-economic background.

So how does this confluence of people manifest itself in Congress? The elite recoil and reject
the more extreme members of Congress. The elites discount the decision of voters to send
their representative to Washington. Because these members of Congress do not think, talk,
look, or even dress like the elite, their proposals to represent their community have little
merit to the “in crowd.”

1
Such bias was long quietly assumed rather than spoken. But with the advent of social media,
and transformative social and political changes over the last two decades, it’s now out in the
open. We know it’s true because we see it every day. But from the perspective of social
science, it’s been difficult to quantify. So we embarked on a novel approach: we decided to
examine the Congressional caucuses, formed over time to address political, social, and
economic issues of interest to specific groups of members of Congress. To our minds, these
groupings helpfully illustrate, in microcosm, the political and intellectual biases now so
prevalent in Washington.

Here’s a look at our methodology: We examined the major caucuses (six Democratic, four
Republican, and two bipartisan) that help shape the agenda in Washington. We first ordered
them according to the socioeconomic status of their communities. Then we cross-referenced
their power, measured by seniority, with fundraising and political contributions.

Here's the kicker, which to most observers is probably intuitive, but here, in our analysis, is
supported by empirical data: “moderate” members raise more PAC contributions (which are
controlled by government affairs professionals) than members who belong to more partisan,
and, as some would have it, “extreme,” caucuses. This is the case even with members who
have more experience and influence—for instance, if they are committee chairmen—than
their less experienced, “moderate” counterparts.

Economics
Generally speaking, poorer, majority-white districts elect Republicans while poorer, black,
and diverse districts elect Democrats. These are the “safe” seats in each party – meaning it's
extremely difficult for the opposing party to win. “Swing districts,” which are diminishing in
number, are dominated by wealthier “centrist” voters. Over 60% of toss-up districts are
represented by members of the wealthiest caucuses: the Problem Solvers, the New Dem
Coalition, and the Tuesday Group. Meanwhile, the more partisan caucuses are populated by
the poorest districts.

The chart below orders the congressional caucuses we reviewed by average median income to
highlight economic disparities.

Caucus Political Number of Avg. Median

Problem Solvers Caucus Bipartisan 61 $79,188

New Dem Coalition Democratic 97 $77,883

Tuesday Group Republican 41 $77,555

Civility and Respect Caucus Bipartisan 30 $75,758

Progressive Caucus Democratic 101 $75,144

2
 Blue Dog Coalition Democratic 9 $67,933

Freedom Caucus Republican 52 $67,511

The Squad (Extended) Democratic 9 $66,912

Republican Study Committee Republican 174 $66,253

Hispanic Caucus Democratic 37 $65,972

Anti-Woke Caucus Republican 26 $63,703

Congressional Black Caucus Democratic 55 $63,224

Health

Similarly, the Congressional District Health Dashboard shows that the less healthy
communities are heavily represented by members in more partisan caucuses, while the
healthier ones are dominated by moderate and bipartisan affiliation.

The national poverty rate for children in 2021 was 16.9%. The Problem Solvers and Tuesday
Group have averages of children in poverty at around 13.8% and 13.7%. In contrast, the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) average is 21.3%, Republican Study Committee (RSC) is
16.2%, and the Anti-Woke Caucus is 16.5%.

In short, the poorer the district, the less healthy it is. Not surprising, then, that these
constituents, and the members who represent them, often strike notes discordant to elite
sensibilities. You won’t find them talking about “bridg[ing] the partisan divide,” or taking
stances that “reflect[] the values and priorities of most Americans” — platitudes common to
members from wealthier districts and bipartisan caucuses. For those from more partisan
caucuses, it’s more likely that their constituents, rather than luxuriating in easy, high-minded
discussion, are just trying to reach an equal quality of life.

3
Power
Cross-referencing the socioeconomic backdrop of the caucuses with the levers of power in the
Capitol tells an even more interesting story. While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)
represents the poorest and least healthy constituents, it’s members have the second longest
tenure in Congress, with each serving an average six terms in Congress. Only the Blue Dogs (a
much smaller caucus of only nine members) has a higher average term in office. Meanwhile,
the bipartisan and moderate caucuses that represent wealthier, healthier districts have
between two to three fewer average terms in office.

In a world free of bias, attention and support would flow to the most senior and influential
members of Congress. After all, lobbyists and communications experts are hired to inform and
influence Congress. But that’s not what happens.

Three of the caucuses with the highest average PAC dollars – which are largely controlled by
lobbyists, or groups of influential individuals who determine how to use a corporations’ or
wealthy donors’ money– are the less tenured, bipartisan or moderate identifying groups: the
Civility & Respect Caucus, the Problem Solvers, the New Dem Coalition, and the Tuesday
Group. Although the CBC has one of the highest seniority averages, its members do not
receive nearly as many PAC dollars as the Blue Dog Coalition or its other more bipartisan
counterparts.

Similarly, conservative-aligned caucuses that share very similar socioeconomic conditions as

Together, the CBC rescued the 2020 presidential campaign of Joe Biden while the Freedom
Caucus continues to dominate the Republican conference in the House of Representatives. A
heady bunch, you might say, or to the average American observing the comings and goings in

4
the halls of power. But not according to Washington’s political elite.

Conclusion
In a democracy, such biases, while powerful, aren’t dictatorial. From time to time they are

challenged, and successfully so, leaving the elite class frustrated and even more confused
about their country than they normally tend to be.

The Congressional Black Caucus (the poorest in Congress) is the most influential voting bloc in
the Democratic Caucus. The Freedom Caucus (one of the poorest in Congress) has arguably
equal power in the Republican Conference. And Washington’s elite, for all its self-imputed
wisdom, should take note. Feelings can be a powerful driver of our politics today, but humility
and a little hard data can offer a better path for our representative democracy.

Sam Geduldig is a Republican Lobbyist in Washington, DC. He previously worked for John
Boehner in Congress.