Politicians Working Together

Do we really want our politicians to work together?

I caught a few minutes of an interview with former Senator Danforth of Missouri, who commented that “the people” want their government to work, they don’t think it is working, and that they would like their politicians to work together. Now I like Senator Danforth, which was why I stopped long enough to hear his interview. (I’m afraid I don’t even recall the network.) But I think a lot less people want politicians working together peacefully than say they do.

What they really want is for politicians who agree with them to succeed at their goals for for all the other politicians to work with their favorites. Now don’t get me wrong; I’m sure there are a number of people who actually do want politicians to work together in a bipartisan fashion. I just think there are less of us than the polls would indicate.

If you want to know where you stand on this ask yourself how many issues are litmus test issues for you. For example:

• You oppose increased taxes, but your congressman votes to raise some particular tax as part of an overall budget balancing (or at least deficit reducing) measure. Do you consider the entire measure and ask whether the country was generally better off with the bill or without it, or do you decide you can never vote for that congressman again because he has supported a tax increase?
• Or take that point from the other side. Supposing you support particular social support measures, but your congressman, who normally votes as you like votes to cut a particular program as part of an overall economic bill. Is he out of here?
• You are hardline pro-life, but the most conservative candidate in your district supports abortion in a number of specific instances which you oppose. Do you vote for him on the ground that he’s more pro-life than the alternative, or do you stay home because there is no appropriate candidate?
• You are pro-choice, yet your candidate supports some restrictions on abortion that you feel are excessive? I reverse the previous question.

I could enumerate many more issues such as civil unions or gay marriage, military spending/activity, immigration, the death penalty, and so forth. I’ve heard any number of “working together” speeches, but generally these speeches also involve core issues on which the candidate has no intention of compromise. I suspect that his or her supporters generally don’t want compromise on those particular issues either.

I believe that compromise is an essential feature of government and would like to see us do it honestly. By that I mean that candidates indicate their preferred position, but also indicate their just where and to what extent they would be willing to compromise. There are a number of politicians who are willing to work together, and I’m glad of that. I don’t think it is a bad idea, however, to have politicians who are at the more extreme positions as well. Having those extremes represented in the debate has its own value.

Foreign policy would be an especially important area in which compromise and consensus building would be useful. We should always consider the sustainability of a foreign policy position along with the other benefits and difficulties. If a single election is likely to derail a policy, it might be better not to implement it at all.

But at the core, government will be done to those who can compromise appropriately and build consensus.