When congress ended pork they ended cooperation. There was no more

[rainy]

incentive to vote for anything but hard line party rule if they were not being bribed.
That's just a theory I've been pushing around.
What do you guys think?

[gopiscrap]

1. that has a lot to do with it

also 24/7 hate tv didn't help

[northoftheborder]

2. I hate to admit it, but probably true in many, many cases.

[Va Lefty]

3. sad but true. Also the accession of RW radio, no reward for compromise there

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Depends on what you mean by "pork."

One of the legitimate expectations of a congressperson is that they find ways to benefit their districts and constituents. As long as there's no under-the-table deals or bribes it's entirely legal; and there's nothing untoward or wrong, by itself, with a congresscritter voting for funding for a project in his/her district. The hard-line votes we see now have a lot less to do with "pork" than an increasingly divided electorate, with extreme positions advanced particularly by the right wing.

[AJT]

5. Unintended consequences of good intentions.

And the end of the fairness doctrine sure didn't help.

[procon]

6. The thing with those earmarks was they gave congress the means to control

and even punish members who didn't follow the policies and curtail the revolts from various factions. They are used as political favors to entice members of Congress to vote on certain pieces of legislation. Just add a bit of pork to bills to allow members to boast about getting a little goody for their district, helping to keep them in office. The GOP tried to lift the ban in earmarks in January, but Ryan squashed it on account of giving the 'drain the swamp' theme a bad name.