The United States Congress has gotten far too good at its job. Before you break out the pitchforks and torches, understand that I do not mean this in a good way. Its job no longer seems to be passing constructive legislation, but instead getting elected and debating. Congress has obtained a mastery of merciless rhetorical attack, aimed at satisfying extremist interests, while ignoring calls for moderation.

No, Congress has never been a paragon of virtue. However, I can at least say that our current leaders’ tactics have become far more brilliant and refined than in the past, when violence on the floor of the Senate was not unheard of. Remember Preston Brooks, the South Carolina Congressman who famously bludgeoned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a wooden cane on the Senate floor in 1856? While the above case may seem a bit extreme, the following bit of recent congressional history shows that Congress is so good at its job of politicking that it cannot seem to get anything done.

Last month, the Senate voted down the once-popular repeal of the military’s discriminatory policy against gay service members. A small number of Senate Republicans had originally agreed to support the measure, making a rare bipartisan showing in the chamber. This bipartisanship lasted until the Democratic leadership implemented aggressive procedural tactics, which were intended to attach less popular measures to the bill and, at the same time, stifle the number of amendments that Republicans could introduce. The key Republicans then refused to provide the “ayes,” and the once-promising bill failed. However, the bill did not meet defeat before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to save the bill for later debate by voting against the bill that he had just spent weeks working to pass. Amazingly, it turns out that by way of Senate administrative rules and procedures, a defeated bill may be saved for later debate if the Majority Leader votes against it, thus justifying Reid’s seemingly ridiculous maneuver.

Of course, such outlandish parliamentary drama is not exclusive to the Senate, particularly throughout the past year and a half. Democratic voices have long called for Reid to be as aggressive and politically effective as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Republicans, however, have lambasted these parliamentary tactics in both chambers as exclusionary and despotic. The Democratic counterargument is as follows: yes, Democratic tactics unfairly force members of Congress to vote for legislation they do not support, but Republican Congressional leadership used the exact same tactics during its tenure from 1997 to 2007.

Such disputes reflect the mood of most debates in the past legislative session: accusatory and completely irrelevant. Indeed, a majority wanted to see the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill passed, but the introduction of more extremist measures caused kneejerk reaction from the minority. The bill’s failure could only be partially salvaged through an outlandish and counterintuitive parliamentary maneuver. As with debates on the national debt and healthcare, each side is content to argue that the current policy is wrong, yet the policies remain unchanged because of the opposition’s intransigence and aggression. All of this ignores a central fact: our public officials have made and continue to make mindless policies out of electoral convenience, implementing mind-boggling tactics for the sake of either painting opponents as practically satanic or selling policies that, while unpopular, are favored by interest groups that are essential to primary elections and fund-raising.

Ultimately, the political melodrama we see unfolding each day in Washington is not about creating moderate, sensible policies that the moderate majority of Americans see as plausible, but about the maintenance of power by incumbent legislators. Currently, the majority of congressional leadership is composed of career politicians. They direct extremist agendas and counter-productive electoral tactics, while building insurmountable nests of power that help them coerce freshmen representatives into voting for legislation they would otherwise oppose. A solution, then, must seek to eliminate or shift the sources of power that such politicians spend so much time pursuing. Term limits are a great start. Another useful reform would be an overhaul of the primary system, allowing all voters to participate in party elections, cutting the influence of the far ends of the spectrum and introducing a welcome voice of moderation into our government. The beauty of the American Constitution is that it is an amendable document, to be forever challenged and reborn by the necessities of our ever-changing republic.

On a side note, Senator Sumner, Brooks’ victim survived the beating and went on to fight vehemently for slave emancipation and civil rights until he was stripped of his committee chairmanship by the Grant Administration in 1871 after failing to support the president’s reelection bid. Which beating was more crushing, the physical or the political, is for you to decide.