Why isn't Congress doing anything about Trump? They want to be re-elected. | Opinion – The Palm Beach Post

Question: Why doesn’t Congress act more as a check on the President?
Answer: Political science has spent a fair amount of time studying how and why members of the U.S. Congress make the decisions that they do. One of the most significant early books on the issue was written by David Mayhew in 1974 titled, “The Electoral Connection.” Mayhew essentially argued that you can understand the choices made by members of Congress when viewing it through their desire to be re-elected. In Mayhew’s view, politicians are motivated by self-interest, and that begins with their desire to win re-election.
Subsequent research and studies of Congress have challenged this view as too limiting or missing other factors, such as a desire to increase their power (Dodd 1977), support their party (Aldrich 2011), or advocate for policy (Arnold 1990). Nonetheless, the desire to win re-election remains a useful heuristic for finding a rough understanding of what motivates choices in Congress.
So, why don’t members of the House challenge the President when they disagree? Because doing so can be politically costly. If the President is popular with a representative’s party base, or even just in their district, speaking out against the President can trigger a backlash. For many members, especially in safe seats where the only real threat comes from a primary challenger, criticizing a President from their own party is like painting a target on their back. The risk isn’t losing a general election, it’s losing to someone more loyal, more vocal, more willing to toe the party line. Former Republican Rep. Lynn Cheney of Wyoming is a recent example of a Congresswoman whose criticism likely cost her politically.
There’s also party leadership to consider. Committee assignments, endorsements, and fundraising help are controlled, to some degree, by party leaders who tend to demand loyalty. Picking a fight with the President can easily be interpreted as picking a fight with the party, and that can result in a reduction of one’s influence and power in Congress. Party resources may not flow to members who are not “team players”. Criticism is a risky move for a member who wants to keep climbing the ranks or even just stay in Congress.
While much of this logic has been true for a long time, there are some added factors today based on the way Congress has evolved over time. We are in an increasingly polarized nation, which has made bipartisanship harder and party unity more important. Many people see the other party as the enemy and their own party as part of their personal identity. In that environment, independent voices are discouraged. The President, as the symbolic and strategic leader of the party, becomes a figure that members are reluctant to oppose — even if they might privately disagree.
At the core of all of this is a pretty straightforward calculation: will this help me get re-elected? If the answer is no, chances are that opposition will be behind the scenes, if present at all. Not because members of Congress do not have opinions, but because survival in politics often means picking your battles — and criticizing a President from their own party isn’t usually the one most Congresspersons choose to pick.
Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not necessarily represent the views of the university. If you have a question about how American government and politics work, email him at kwagne15@fau.edu or reach him on Twitter/X @kevinwagnerphd.

source