РефератыИностранный языкArArt Of Compromise Essay Research Paper I

Art Of Compromise Essay Research Paper I

?Art Of Compromise? Essay, Research Paper


I. The label “art of compromise” and it’s reference to


politics.


Politics is referred to as the “art of compromise”. It


is essential to a democratic society. Elected officials meet in


legislative chambers to hammer out policies that all constituents


can live with. Successful politicians learn early on the


survival value of compromise. Economist Donald Wittman (1995:


154) correctly observes, “That is what good politicians do:


create coalitions and find acceptable compromises.” Also


political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain (1995: 61) states “But


compromise is not a mediocre way to do politics; it is an


adventure, the only way to do democratic politics.”


II. Reasons why compromise is essential.


Politicians need to be able to compromise and be good


at bargaining with other elected officials. One reason is that in


order to get what is important to them, they must be willing to


negotiate with others who also want support, it’s is a trade off


in that each wants support for the their cause and in turn, must


support someone else’s cause as well. They must do this type of


bargaining in order to win enough support to get the votes


necessary to win for their constituents. If the constituents


don’t see that the elected official can bring home the bacon,


they won’t vote for them in the next election. In other words,


without compromise, nothing will be acheived for the


contituency, and as a result the official will not likely


continue to hold office for long.


By the same token, no politicians or voters, will get everything


they want. There must be a majority to implement policy, which


means that means that almost every time supporters of policy will


have to give up something of value to others in order to win


enough support for their cause. This is referred to as


“logrolling.” In order to function well, Congress needs members


who understand the need for and have the ability to compromise;


who are willing to be team players and fight for what they


believe without demonizing their opponents, so that they may work


with them again on different issues. A politician who refuses to


compromise is typically labeled as an “ideologue”, a title which


has little prestige among members of political class.


III. Backlash of compromise and the role politics play


in regard to effectiveness of compromise.


Politicians who are known for compromise are less


attractive in the public opinion. The public prefers rigid


adherence to principles they believe are important, and don’t


generally understand the essential need for compromise, or how


necessary it is to get things done. Because compromise is


essential to being effective for the constituency, each


legislator is confronted by the difficult task of being an expert


compromiser in legislatures while appearing to voters to be an


uncompromising champion of principle.


Democratic politics falls short of achieving optimal


compromise not only because of immoderate ideological restraints


imposed on representatives by voters, but also because it


displaces arrangements which could achieve a far greater amount


of progress. Politics stifle more beneficial compromise than it


promotes. President George Bush Sr. learned how damaging a


non-compliant attitude in regards to his 1990 “read my lips, no


new taxes” campaign pledge. President Bush Sr. did what comes


naturally to all politicians: compromise first and worry about


ideology later. However, his problem was he was caught in the act


and his political rivals easily portrayed his character as an


unprincipled leader. He stated “The biggest mistake of my


presidency was that I damaged my credibility by agreeing to a tax


increase…I worked a compromise and it cost me plenty” (Bush


1996). However, when Ronald Reagan compromised during his


presidency, he had such refined communic

ation skills that he was


able to deflect the public’s attention from his compromises, and


focus it instead on his proudly proclaimed ideological beliefs.


Institutional effectiveness requires officials with a relatively


long time goals who see policy making as an ongoing process in


which there are no final winners and should be no total losers.


IV. A voice by all is not heard.


The political bargaining table only has a limited


number of seats. While all parties at the table must compromise


amongst themselves, they are the lucky few to have a say in what


will be compromised upon. Individual citizens rarely have


political influence. Political influence requires that people be


organized into lobbying groups of sufficient size and with


sufficient resources to attract the attentions of elected


officials. Politics is weak at compromise because politics


artificially and unnecessarily limits the number of bargaining


parties (Crew and Twight 1990; Twight 1994). Parties excluded


from the table never have their interests on the table to be


weighed against the interests of the select few sitting at


the table. The interests of unorganized groups are ignored by


political processes. Thus describing politics as the art of


compromise is misleading because the value to interest groups


using political process depends on the inability of other groups


to organize effectively and join in the bargaining. Because of


this advantage, interest groups have incentives to limit the


number of parties sitting at the table. The end result is that


the general, unorganized public typically are compromised by


political compromise. If the public does not trust the


institution, and does not understand the crucial role that


bargaining and compromise play, it becomes much more difficult


for politicians to make the hard choices.


Conclusion


Compromise is an ingredient of a democratic society


that cannot be excluded. It has helped our society to be able to


make changes, which without compromise, we could not have


benefited from the positive effects of had it not been possible


to compromise with others. Compromise does have it’s pitfalls,


and it is restrained for two basic reasons. First, the


indecisiveness of each voter’s vote in democratic elections


causes voters to vote too ideologically, and voters reward


politicians for supporting policies consistent with ideological


beliefs, whether or not such policies pass any reasonable


cost-benefit tests (Sinclair 1996). Fear of punishment from


voters keeps politicians from compromising as openly and fully as


they otherwise would. Second, political decision making is too


sensitive to special interest groups, and too insensitive to


unorganized groups. That is not everyone who is being affected by


policy decisions is having a say in what is being considered.


Thus, although compromise does weigh in heavily in support of the


processes of a democratic society, it is not without fault, and


does neglect a large part of the public’s interests by not


allowing them the representation they deserve to have a voice


about all policy making which goes on behind closed doors, and


away from public view. However, compromise should be more open


and accepted by the public, criticized and debated upon, in order


for our society to be considered a true democracy.


Bibliography


Sources


Bush, G. (1996) “Notable & Quotable.” In Wall Street


Journal, 26 January: A10.


Crew, M.A., and Twight, C. (1990) “On the Efficiency of


Law: A Public Choice Perspective.” Public Choice


66:15-36


Elshtain. J.B. (1995) Democracy on Trial. New York:


Basic Books.


Sinclair, B. (1996) Vote for Me: Politics in America.


American Political Science Association, September,


1996.


Wittman, D.A. (1995) The Myth of Democratic Failure.


Chicago: University of Chicago

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Art Of Compromise Essay Research Paper I

Слов:1345
Символов:9493
Размер:18.54 Кб.