The linked article begins with an anecdote about John Dingell, who served in Congress for about 1000 years. He said that in the 1950s, members came to office as representatives of their states first, of their institution (House or Senate) 2nd, and their parties 3rd. I suspect he is overstating the case, but to be sure, that was a time when both parties would have enthusiastically supported the infrastructure bill.

Dingell’s nostalgic longing for the past aside, I think he was directionally correct, and now, members are representatives of their parties only. They don’t think about their states, or their country. Dingell was from Michigan, which needs infrastructure investment more than most states according to this article. 6 of 7 Mich repubs voted against their state’s interests in opposing the long overdue infrastructure investments. As did Rashida Tlaib on the dem side. All were angling for their partisan interests against the urgent needs of their constituents. Gerrymandering is one reason - the only thing these insular, crazily shaped districts reward is partisanship, and they punish compromise, regardless of what it’s about.

Both parties do it - a recent study showed 3 red states and 1 blue as the most egregious. The repubs simply outgun the dems, holding sway in 8 more states. But dems in NY appear set to outflank a recent state ballot initiative to end partisan gerrymandering - always a loophole if you look hard enough. But maybe not in California. They took district drawing away from partisan committees in what may be one of the better of their far too frequent ballot initiatives, and it does seem to be working. Seats flip back and forth there far more frequently than they used to. Which means incentives align with the interests of a city that needs, for example, new water pipes to get the lead out of the drinking supply, instead of with the party.

As we just saw, even with something both parties want, our hyperpartisan environment brings rejection to the point of death threats in some cases for anybody who dares to collaborate with the other side to deliver it.