The Death of Compromise
Brief Thoughts on the Rise of Polarization in American Politics
When considering how to reduce tension and party-based prejudice within the Senate, there are many factors to consider. I’ll admit that when I first thought about this problem, it seemed an impossible one to solve; this opinion is coming from someone who is normally quite optimistic. Upon further reflection and reading, perhaps it is possible to solve the tension and have the two sides come together, but many things would need to change and be put in place.
It seems almost a given that Senators, even from different parties or backgrounds, would want to work together. Considering the Robbers Cave experiment seems like a great frame for the relationships between Senators at first glance, and one begins to wonder why their common goals aren’t more unifying. Although they may come from different parties, they should all have the singular goal of advancing legislation. A common goal should increase their desire to work together, and the advancement of legislation and completion of goals should build more positive and less prejudiced feelings towards each other.5
Through the lens of the Robbers Cave experiment, cooperation may seem inevitable.5 I would argue that it is, in fact, inevitable yet not always helpful. Most senators will agree on something at some point or another, particularly given how long their careers tend to span; this is hardly the same as having a common goal or multiple common goals. The party divisions almost encourage different goals in many ways. Gay marriage was a hot-button issue for so long and still remains one because one party believes that it is fundamentally wrong and the other party does not. These are general terms and stances; not all conservatives oppose gay marriage, and not all liberals are for it, but as far as the party is concerned, the differences and goals are pretty clear.
There are also some instances of cooperation that would hardly be beneficial towards removing negative feelings. Legislation is frequently very detailed and extensive, containing many different goals and desires, with very few people actually getting everything that they or their constituents may want. While there may be an overall goal, there are many competing goals that must be reconciled before the common goal can be reached. These smaller compromises towards a larger goal may actually help create animosity rather than decreasing it. If a budget needs to be agreed upon and both parties want increased spending, then initially, a budget may seem within reach. Upon discussion, the details are revealed, and one party wants increased military spending while the other wants expanded social welfare programs. Now, achieving the common goal of passing a budget becomes much harder because of the smaller competing goals that need to be reconciled. Eventually, they will have to reach the inevitable compromise, but this hardly would qualify as a positive interaction that would dispel the negative feelings harbored against each other.6
The biggest issue for cooperation is that it is not beneficial. Obviously, it is beneficial for the country and the citizens as a whole to have a functioning and cooperative government, but it is not politically or personally beneficial to the Senators themselves. Advancing legislation is not necessary to get reelected in an increasingly polarized country.3 If anything, coming to a compromise with people your base of constituents are fundamentally opposed to or see as an enemy may be detrimental to any future political endeavors. For career politicians, appearing to be strong members or their in-group may be significantly more beneficial than cooperating with the other half of the Senate. This has been true across time but is far more prevalent in the modern age of typical partisan votes. Even the process of confirming Supreme Court Justices has become increasingly more partisan in the wake of Merrick Garland’s failed nomination and the subsequent judges confirmed since.9
Perhaps the biggest thing that could change the culture of the Senate would involve term limits.1 Politicians who are interested in legacy and not re-election are less beholden to the whims of a political party or the emotional responses of constituents. While it is entirely possible that term limits could create demagogues who are more staunchly partisan in the interest of moving on to a different and potentially higher office, it is far more likely that Senators would be more interested in their long-term legacy and what could benefit the people they represent in the long run rather than their careers.3 In this way, there would be more incentive to interact as equals, searching for something mutually beneficial, thus creating more positive and rewarding contact.
Another major issue facing the Senate is, as already mentioned, cooperation is not sought, particularly by those with authority.6 This includes not just the party leaders that come to mind but the constituents as well. In an increasingly polarized country, voters are, to some extent, less interested in seeing their representatives cooperate and more interested in seeing those representatives push back against the existential threat that they feel exists.7 If we want to decrease the animosity in Congress and increase cooperation within the Senate, a great place to start is with the constituents. Regulating or banning content-tailored ads on social media could be incredibly helpful in this endeavor. As discussed a couple of weeks ago, individuals who deactivate their social media accounts become less partisan.4 Getting rid of social media is hardly a reasonable or practical solution, but creating less of an informational bubble through social media is a completely logical step. This idea is also enforced by this week’s Allport reading; there is good reason to believe that more information will help alleviate stereotypes and prejudice, and zero evidence to show that more information on different or opposing views is in any way harmful or counterproductive. This direct approach through the indirect and social media-centered method of learning and opinion formation could prove truly helpful in addressing the root of the Senate’s issues, namely, its constituents.2
Overall, the problem is not nearly as hopeless as it may first appear; however, it is far more in-depth and nuanced than simply fixing the Senate. There are deep cultural divides that must also be fixed. Long-festering issues surrounding inequality and changing times exist on both sides of the aisle. Ironically, we live in an age where there is more information available to us than ever before, yet we are still overwhelmingly sheltered and secluded from understanding others. There any many motivations for our Senators to not cooperate, self-interest being among them, and until those issues are addressed, nothing will change. The good news is that, while there may be a few issues, there are also many solutions that can get to the heart of the issues. Tactics that encourage less partisanship in citizens and make it less politically beneficial to refuse cooperation can be implemented over time and may prove to be beneficial for future generations and the health of the country and Senate overall.
References:
Allen, C. M. (2021, January 30). Ted Cruz is right: We need term limits in House, Senate. Retrieved from https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/02/01/ted-cruz-is-right-we-need-term-limits-in-house-senate/
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.
Beinart, P. (2021, January 15). Why Are There So Few Courageous Senators? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/opinion/senators-trump-impeachment-republicans.html
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M. H., Ditto, P. U., Iyengar, S. U., Klar, S. U., . . . Nyhan, B. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Social Science: Policy Forum.
Konnikova, M. (2012, September 05). Revisiting Robbers Cave: The easy spontaneity of intergroup conflict. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/revisiting-the-robbers-cave-the-easy-spontaneity-of-intergroup-conflict/
Neuberg, S. L. (n.d.). Module 6: Changing Stereotypes & Reducing Prejudice. Lecture presented at PPS 503: Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Intergroup Relations in ASU, Tempe, Arizona.
Political Polarization in the American Public. (2020, August 28). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wadington, K. (2020, September 19). Then and now: What McConnell, others said about Merrick Garland in 2016 vs. after Ginsburg's death. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/19/what-mcconnell-said-merrick-garland-vs-after-ginsburgs-death/5837543002/