I think our Founders originally viewed serving in Congress as a duty that people would take up for a time, after which they would return to their former lives.  This would keep the government “in touch” with the real world and real life concerns.  Of course, they also conceived of a much more limited government than we have now.  The idea of someone serving for 20 years or more in Congress would likely have appalled them.  Consider these examples:

• John Kerry: first elected 11/06/1984
• Ted Kennedy: first elected 11/06/1962
• Tom Delay: first elected 11/06/1984
• Charles Shumer: House or Representatives from 1980 to 1998, Senate from 1998-present.

I could go on and on, there are a lot of examples to work with.

What if we were to start treating serving in Congress a bit like jury duty?  The House of Representatives could have members who are randomly selected from their House district.  Those who are selected would serve for a one year term and then go home.  Of course, I recognize that this could be a hardship.  Being uprooted from your home and job and family for a year would be a big disruption.  To make it work, those who are selected would have to be paid enough to live with their family in Washington, DC for the year (as well as make up their current income level) and have some kind of guarantee they’d still have a job when they returned (kind of like when someone is deployed as part of the National Guard or reserves).

To prevent this from being a form of conscription, there would have to be an “opt-out” capability.  Perhaps when you register to vote you could also indicate that you were unwilling to be considered for House duty.

As for the Senate, I’d suggest that the direct election of Senators should be repealed and the job of selecting them returned to the states.

I don’t know that this would work out, but I’m getting sick and tired of life-long politicians running the federal government.  Perhaps if we had some people with real-world experience they wouldn’t be so quick to legislate everything.  Or even if they were, perhaps they’d all have such different viewpoints that nothing would ever get done in the House unless it was clearly needed.

Gridlock isn’t necessarily a bad thing.