The article doesn't say, but if I were a betting man I'd put my money on the half that aids the party that is technically in power in the House yet achieving absolutely nothing; the half that is taken hostage by an extremist arm that is poisoning otherwise (presumably) respectable resumes. Can you imagine explaining in a job interview that you were a senior staffer for somebody like Boebert or Gaetz? I'd rather just say I was a senior staffer for "a member of Congress" and avoid talking about who exactly. I don't think I'd even mention which Congress because this session is so goddamn embarrassing to be affiliated with.
Can you imagine explaining in a job interview that you were a senior staffer for somebody like Boebert or Gaetz? I'd rather just say I was a senior staffer...
The article says it's not split along party lines.
Honestly, I get it. Dysfunction and corruption in politics has produced a generation of congresspeople who are self-selected for being obstructive corrupt assholes, and dysfunction in media has produced an electorate that's too poorly informed to be able to tackle the (substantial) task of identifying and removing the bums and installing instead people who would be at least passably interested in forming a part of a functioning government.
My guess is that the staffers, in contrast to the a lot of the politicians, are pretty interested in being part of a functioning government. Even if the person you work for is interested in progress, that means more or less nothing if the rest of the system isn't on board, which currently it isn't. It must be frustrating as hell going in to work every day and watching everyone important in your organization just strutting around telling racist jokes and smearing shit on the walls, and then you have to clean it all up and try to turn it into something useful.
(This is by the way one tactic in the process of fascism taking control. Clog up the works of legitimate government to lend a tissue of credibility to your claim "well the whole thing doesn't work, it's better if we push it aside and I just run everything instead.")
Staffers make garbage money and have really unstable job security. Most of them come in starry-eyed and hoping to make a change and then end up quitting to become a lobbyist so they can actually afford to pay their bills.
This is 200% dependent on the person you are working for. I’m sure that MTG is terrible, for instance, though I’m also sure that Pramila Jayapal is great to work for.