"As already suggested, the essence of most bipartisan compromises is that they contain provisions unpopular with constituencies of both parties and often provisions that are unpopular with a majority of voters. That’s why such measures tend to be passed by bipartisan coalitions of members with safe seats.
"In such an unsettled political environment [as the one we have today], it may be difficult—maybe impossible—to round up the votes needed for bipartisan legislation. Politicians will not be inclined to take on additional and avoidable risks. And that difficulty means that legislators in a position, whether because of expertise or committee membership, to cobble together such legislation may just conclude that it’s not worth the trouble.
"Absent large congressional majorities, therefore, it looks like we are stuck for a while—not only, or mainly, because of ideological polarization and party sorting, but because of electoral volatility. When you think about it, this suits the definition of irony. Why are voters so willing to “throw out the bums”? Because they think they can’t get much of anything done. Why can’t they get much of anything done? Because they’re afraid that bipartisan compromise will get them thrown out of office."
Two other possible ironies not mentioned by Barone: Since nothing creates stability like firmly partisan districts, perhaps more gerrymandering is needed for bipartisan legislation to happen? Even more counter-intuitive and depressing: if engaged, independent and open-minded voters are more likely to be volatile (than dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and Democrats), then maybe we should be advocating for greater voter apathy and blind-partisanship? Now, them's some grim thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment