RODNEY DANGERFIELD'S famous line accurately diagnoses Congress's popularity problem--based on recent polling, lawmakers collectively get little respect from the public. But if 80 percent of success really is just showing up, then Woody Allen may have their solution.

Last year Republicans on Capitol Hill began asking a version of the "respect" question: Why does Congress work so hard racking up legislative accomplishments only to see their poll numbers go south? And, adding insult to injury, why do few voters believe congressional actions on tax cuts, energy policy, tort reform, or a highway bill have any connection to the strong GDP, low inflation, and booming job creation of the last few years?

Polls underscore these concerns, showing congressional approval plummeting from 43 percent in January to 29 percent in December--nearing the 10-year low reached prior to the 1994 election, despite what Republicans believed were stellar accomplishments.

Political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse explore the keys to congressional popularity in their book, The Stealth Congress. They argue that laundry lists of accomplishments don't necessarily translate to better poll numbers because most voters don't pay attention to the specifics of legislation. They care less about what Congress does and more about how they do it. Process--defined not in the detailed procedural sense, but in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and tone--is more important than policy. According to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse:

The people . . . want to ensure that they are not played for suckers by those who are involved in politics, so their ideal system is one in which they themselves are not involved, but where they can be confident that decision makers will be motivated by a desire to serve the people.

In earlier work, over a decade ago Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that voters would rather their representatives spend time at home listening to the people than in "special interest"-infested Washington.

Fast forward 10 years, and the pattern still holds. Last month, a colleague of mine conducting focus group research made some interesting findings. First, consistent with Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's research, most voters didn't have a clue about specific congressional accomplishments. Taking time to learn about specific legislation seemed like a distraction. "Just show me the results; it's Congress' job to worry about the details," was a common view. This attitude also underscored lawmakers' problem: How do you get credit for something when your audience isn't really paying much attention?

Another theme in the focus groups deepened the mystery. When asked what would make them feel more positive about Congress, voters responded in a surprising way. A few mentioned specific policy concerns, while others wanted an end to inside-the-beltway bickering. Yet a lot of people mentioned something unusual: attendance--just "showing up." Apparently many citizens think their representatives go to Washington and just slack off.

So could lawmakers fix the Rodney Dangerfield "no respect" problem by deploying the Woody Allen solution? Voters want lawmakers who attend sessions regularly when they're in Washington, but they also say lawmakers need a better connection with the folks back home to avoid Potomac fever infection, which is easily transmitted by excessive contact with special interests. We tested this idea several ways in a recent national survey (800 registered voters, +/-3.5% margin of error, conducted January 17-22, 2006) and discovered that both "showing up" and going home matter.