Compromise and the Political Process

Political Compromise

Compromise and Politics

Public choice should be at the forefront of any politician's minds when compromising. However, many people working in politics recognize they are motivated by self-interests and personal ideologies as much as anyone else; however, compromise may not always occur in an atmosphere where political leaders place personal ethical beliefs over the need to govern through compromise.

Politics is supposedly the "art of compromise" (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997) where elected officials are expected to put voter's needs and wants ahead of personal agendas. Glaser (2006) notes that often the needs of the majority can become the wants and desire of the minority if a savvy politician has the ability to redirect attitudes and frame ideologies in a beneficial manner. However, in today's heated political arena, often "compromise" entails putting one's personal ideologies in place instead of the needs and wants of voters. To need to implement policy however, often requires that politicians must sacrifice something they or others value, to activate the political process; this is the act of compromise, something often referred to as "logrolling" (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997).

For example, during the Reagan administration there were numerous instances where personal ideologies or self-interests gave way to political compromise. The then president dropped plans established to eliminate the Dept. Of Energy and Education, and actually created instead the Dept. Of Veteran's Affairs (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997). This had the effect of bolstering consumer confidence in the president, which is always helpful with regard to voting polls. Reagan also agreed to many tax hikes which may not have been part of his personal ideology (Weidenbaum, 1988; Boudreaux & Lee, 1997; Bovard, 1991). Bovard (1991) also notes that Reagan in another instance, in 1984, "ordered the U.S. Trade Representative to raise barriers to the importation of foreign steel" but at the same time, began "with a paean to free trade" suggesting he was hypocritical in nature (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997). Glaser (2006) notes that compromise can be damaging when it is not explained in terms of benefice to the public at large, and is instead directed in terms of what is best for a small community of people. Thus forming dialogue in terms of the nation is a sensible manner of going about compromise.

Most of these political campaigns are known as "special-interest" campaigns; Boudreaux & Lee (1997) highlight numerous instances of these campaigns camouflaged as public interest campaigns. These include Reagan's "free-trade rhetoric" which was used to impart textile quotas, which one Senator stated was necessary to "protect the American dream;" yet another by Sen. Fritz Hollings (Congressional Record 1990:S4901) which asserted that tariff's on footwear were needed because these "protected" the American consumer yet again from "threats of runaway prices" for shoes (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997). Other examples cited by the authors include Rep. Ed Jenkin's (Congressional Record 1986: H9386) argument that all "basic industries" in the United States had to receive protection from "imports" because if they were not, the U.S. "would not be able to lead the free world that all of us want to lead" (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997). Such statements are illogical and used to brainwash people into thinking the government is acting on behalf of the people, when self-interest is at heart.

Compromise IS necessary, but the politicians governing compromise must consider how much the weight of their decisions will affect others. Glaser (2006) makes an important point, noting that when compromise is necessary, it is much more beneficial to redirect attitudes of the political minority so they understand why the prevailing ideology is important to pass. Much of the time the consideration involves the vote of consumers. Every politician has to pay a price for their choices, and typically this comes in the way of votes. Voters typically vote for those politicians who constantly support the majority ideology at the time; thus a politician will "compromise" to provide such an ideology, whether or not it matches their own. Sometimes the desire for voting rewards leads to the passage of policies that are not beneficial when one performs a cost-to-benefit analysis, which can damage the country over the long-term (Boudreaux & Lee, 1997).

Conclusions