Support for Compromise in Principle and in Practice

This chapter reports a set of experiments that consider people’s appraisals of specific policy compromises in Congress, focusing on whether people like compromises less once they understand what types of policy concessions they entail. Drawing on recent congressional compromises on domestic violence legislation, education reform, and health-care policy, the experiments test whether people evaluate Congress and its policy outcomes differently when bills are represented as compromises where both sides made concessions in order to achieve policy gains. The results show that people are disappointed when they learn that a bill failed to pass due to members of Congress refusing to compromise. Members of Congress do not seem to be penalized for their support of compromise legislation. Policy compromises serve to boost the perceived legitimacy of the decision-making process, particularly among those who are ideologically opposed to the outcome.

Campaigns, Competition, and Support for Political Compromise

Campaigns draw people into the partisan practice of politics, through close competition, campaign ads, and calls to take sides. Yet the conflicts of contentious campaigns may do little to encourage compromise, instead leading voters to call on their representatives to deliver on their campaign promises. This chapter shows rather than close the door to compromise, conflicts instead serve as a reminder that other people want different things than we do in politics, disrupting people’s tendencies to assume most others agree with them. Analysis of survey data shows that people who live in states marked by close partisan divides are more likely to prefer a president who is willing to consider compromise. Experimental data confirm that when people learn that other Americans want different policy outcomes, they become more willing to consider compromise solutions.

Partisan Motives and Consideration of Compromise

In a time of party polarization, citizens increasingly see the world in partisan terms. The animosities people feel for the opposing partisan side could threaten the prospects for compromise. This chapter considers degree to which partisan biases prevail over principled thinking when it comes to supporting compromise in politics. With experimental evidence and a set of surveys that span three presidential administrations, partisans are shown to be enthusiastic about the principle of compromise in politics, and are willing to call on their own party to nominate candidates who are willing to make compromises. Yet partisan thinking leaves its mark, as people are more likely to demand compromise from the opposing side than to call on their own party to do the same. People call for compromise among their own ranks as a result of their moderate preferences, while they think their opponents should make concessions as a matter of democratic principle.

Conclusions

The conclusion discusses the implications of the findings and reflects on the book’s major contributions. The factors that make it hard to find compromise in Congress are described, as well as some of the reasons why observers may have misjudged the level of public opposition to compromise. This chapter describes why it is important to show that people care about other goals beyond just winning in politics. Because people are socialized to support compromise as a democratic value, their principled support for compromise can check their partisan instincts in a time of deep ideological divides and profound party polarization.

Do People Want Members of Congress to Compromise?

What do people want from their elected representatives? Our traditional expectation is that people want their legislators to cast votes aligned with the ideological preferences of the district. But if people demand ideological policy representation above all else, it allows legislators little leeway to consider compromise outcomes in Congress. This chapter argues that people expect more from their representatives than congruent votes, and value legislators who are willing to strike compromises. Experimental evidence demonstrates that people offer higher evaluations of legislators who are willing to strike compromises than those who pledge to stick to their convictions. People do not punish in-party representatives for pledging to compromise, while they reward out-party legislators who are willing to seek compromises.

Policymaking, Procedural Justice, and Support for Compromise

Conflict is at the heart of politics, inviting people to see politics in terms of battles to be waged and wars to be won. Policy conflicts invite people to see disagreements in strategic terms. If partisans believe they have the votes to pass their agenda, then compromise will hold little appeal. Experimental findings confirm that people tend to be strategic in how they think about compromise, as those on the winning side tend to resist compromise while those who face unfavorable outcomes embrace it. Yet reminders about democratic norms of procedural fairness and political civility can undercut these tendencies, and encourage people to think about compromise in more principled ways.

The Bounds of Public Support for Compromise

This chapter describes the degree to which people are willing to endorse compromise in specific settings. In reviewing evidence from multiple surveys, people prefer politicians who are willing to compromise to those who stand firm to their convictions. While we might worry that people dislike compromises on issues that they care about, people endorse compromises across a wide range of policy domains. This suggests that citizens want more from politics than just ideological representation. Because citizens are strongly supportive of compromise in politics, it creates electoral incentives for elected officials to seek out legislative compromises.

Public Support for Political Compromise

This chapter develops what it means to compromise in politics and how political compromise is distinctive from other ways of resolving political differences. The virtues of compromise are discussed as well as its perils. The reasons why we might see Americans as wary about compromise are outlined. While people’s ideological motivations may discourage the pursuit of compromise, this chapter argues that people think about compromise in both partisan and principled ways. Compromise is a democratic norm, one Americans support not because it benefits their personal stakes, but also because they believe it is a desirable way to resolve political disputes.

Compromise as a Democratic Value

This chapter takes up the argument that people support the principle of compromise for the same reasons that they embrace other democratic values like free speech or rule of law—because they are socialized to believe that they should. In schools and in their civic lives, Americans learn that compromise is a normatively desirable way to resolve disagreements. With survey data, support for compromise is shown to be predicted by the same considerations that underlie support for other democratic values. When those predisposed to resist compromise gain education, live in places with high social capital, or engage in voluntary organizations, they are more likely to be open-minded about compromise. People’s partisan passions have little to do with their willingness to endorse compromise. In fact, those who are the most inclined to engage in partisan thinking are among the most supportive of compromise.

The Challenges of Compromise

In a time of party polarization, compromises seem increasingly uncommon in Congress. To what degree can this be attributed to the demands of the electorate? If people value partisan fidelity and ideological congruence from their representatives above all else, then legislators who resist compromises are merely acting in the interests of their constituents. In this chapter, the challenges of finding compromise in Congress are discussed, as well as the reasons to expect citizens to dislike policy compromises. The puzzle for the book is introduced: Why and when are people willing to consider compromise as a solution to political disagreements? The answer to this question is previewed: people learn in school about the virtues of compromise in politics, and this socialized support for democratic values checks people’s partisan tendencies when it comes to considering political compromise.