MSC Political Compromise Course

155 Those offering the strongest theories of competitive campaigning are very critical of compromise between political partisans—they view it as a form of duopolistic power[1]: [quoting Ian Shapiro] “If competition for power is the lifeblood of democracy, then the search for bipartisan consensus (along with the ideal of deliberative agreement that lies behind it) is really anticompetitive collusion in restraint of democracy.”

-This argument is familiar to those who have studied “unfettered capitalism”—without some sorts of “market controls,” such an orientation leads to monopolistic enterprises, short-term viewpoints, and rampant classism. While many today try and speak about the tension between economic “capitalism” and socialism” as if there was (and could be) no intermediate position, our economy has been one where there are constraints upon businesses, corporations, or individuals which are intended to protect the public, ensure fair competition, etc.

-p. 156 Our authors note that some “competitive theorists” advocate using antitrust laws and ballot initiatives to break up the anticompetitive power of the two parties in hopes that multi-party competition would be an improvement. They note, however, that the increase in the number of parties would make the need for compromise yet more serious.

-Thus, practically speaking it seems that in if compromise is ruled out in regard to campaigning “the only alternative…at the national level is the equivalent of monopolistic governing power by one party for an extended period of time, which would mean combining control of the executive with supermajorities in Congress [they neglect to mention control of the Courts]. That alternative hardly seems a desirable long-term solution, even if it were possible.

157 “neither a deliberative nor a competitive conception of democracy can be a complete guide to the role of compromise if its core ideal is taken to rule all parts of the democratic process. The competitive idea has to be restrained in governing in order to reach compromises, and the deliberative ideal has to be tempered in campaigning in order to provide choices…Both competition and deliberation have a place throughout the democratic process. Any adequate conception of democracy should make room for both ideals.”

158-160 They contend that their view doesn’t require either compromise or deliberation in both the areas of governing and campaigning

158 “…but it does require that all practices be justified deliberatively at some point, and that they remain open to deliberative challenge at any point. Deliberative democracy requires mutual reason-giving. Citizens and their representatives are expected to justify to one another the laws they adopt and the lawmaking practices by which they adopt them. The mutual justifications are to take the form of reasons that they could be accepted by free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation….

They say their deliberative view “…would acknowledge that competitive campaigns are a desirable and probably the best feasible practice for enabling fee and equal citizens to choose their representatives. It would also recognize that an uncompromising mindset is necessary to sustain this competitive practice. But the form of competitive practices must be justified to and by citizens, which means that deliberation ultimately determines the limits of competition. An aim of such limits would be to keep the competition appropriate in campaigning from overwhelming the deliberation necessary for governing.

In the section “Campaigns Without End” they note that primary elections make candidates campaign uncompromisingly to the base of their party, and that as campaigns become permanent there is little room left for the compromising mindset necessary for governing. Moreover, the rigors of continual campaigning make elective office unattractive to those who want to govern!

In this chapter our authors consider numerous possible ideas for resolving the dilemma which arose in the previous chapter. First, they contend, there must be some positive efforts to find “space” for governing! If the competitive mindset is pushed too far, then we are headed to the sort of competitive cage-match campaigning which makes the compromising mindset impossible:

169 Congressional observer Norm Ornstein proposed that Congress change its schedule: three weeks on (M-F), one week off.

170 There could be common housing that promotes friendship and fellow-feeling amongst our representatives.

172-174 while the filibuster makes compromise difficult the might be agreements about it use which encourage cooperation.

177 Term limits could, perhaps facilitate compromise by providing a natural end to the campaigning.

178 A big problem with term limits is that compromise needs longer-term relations to emerge.

179 They consider whether extending terms might help build mutual respect and engender compromise, but I think we need to look at the Senate and consider whether the six-year terms have the desired effect.

180 Our authors correctly note that fundraising is the most time-consuming of the campaigning activities which impinge on governing. They also note that it focuses the legislators’ attention on the uncompromising mindset, and this interferes with the compromising mindset needed for governing!

181-183 They discuss the possibility that judicial review might address the time-consumption side of things; the possibility that restrictions on raising campaigning contributions during portions of the legislative sessions might ameliorate things;[2]

185 Open Primaries allow the voters to choose to vote for candidates in any of the parties, and they favor more centrism.

186-187 Voter registration is not tilted toward the “normal citizens,” and activists are more partisan (and, thus, less prone to compromise).

-Here, I think we should wonder whether the authors, and ourselves, are too focused on “the base)? Norma shared a link to a wonderful New York Times article that I recommend you read (click on the link).

187 Parliamentary systems can avoid the need for compromise as it is one party rule, but this will not work in our context.

188 If there is to be change, it will not come from the parties, politicians, or political movements! Well, then, Where Will It Come From? They say that we may look for help from “the media” and civic education!”

189 There is a problem with appealing to the media for help in making governing with campaigning possible. The media cover governing as if it is campaigning—because conflict “sells.”

190 There is intense competition for audience-share, and reporting on complex negotiations does not attract audiences.

--196 They can use “focus groups” to gain a better understanding as to what voters actually want (of course these couldn’t be base groups.”

--197 Journalists could spend less time on the campaign trail, alternate the candidates covered, and develop expertise on the core issues and subjects which they could utilize as they report. In addition they could report on coverage which promotes understanding of the need for compromising in governing.

--198 Have response boxes on web-based reporting sites where readers can “vote” on whether or not the articles “help citizens understand better the challenges of governing.”

199-202 They say that perhaps the best hope for the future is the sort of civic education which promotes an understanding of compromise its place in democracy.

They conclude the chapter by reiterating that campaigning is necessary for giving and identifying choices for voters, but can’t “spill over: into governing.

Clearly we need to discuss additional mechanisms to “allow the space for governing!” To start this off, here are some things our State has initiated:

Clearly there are other sorts of thing which can promote this goal however. One which we discussed in passing earlier is promoting Civility—Connie sent me a link “A Call for Bold Civility and Kindness” which is relevant here, and now is the time to share this (click on the ling).

Notes: [click on the note number to return to the text for a given note]

[1] Duopoly: a situation in which control of a commodity, service, or the reins of political power is lodged in just two producers, suppliers, or parties.

[2] Just this week I received a campaign donation request from Senate President Tory Jackson’s Office which noted the law that “lobbyists, lobbyist associates, their clients, and political action committees that are affiliated with a client” may not make contributions during the session. It said such donations would be returned. Somehow it seems that the mere inclusion of this sort of reference might be taken to indicate that the law forbidding such contributions has a rather loose connection with constraining campaigning.