Compromise and the Political Process Essay

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…