For all of their enormous clout globally, Washington and the San Francisco Bay Area can be pretty insular places. It’s a dynamic that’s reinforced by the know-it-all attitude of the dominant professional class of each. Washingtonians working in governmental circles think nobody understands politics like they do, while Bay Area tech professionals claim to be transforming humanity through lines of code.
I recently had the opportunity to travel to the Bay Area in an effort organized by the Lincoln Initiative to bring these two dynamic but distant communities closer together. They actually have much more in common than it seems: Plenty of Bay Area technologists are deeply passionate about government and politics, while D.C. supports a vibrant and growing civic tech scene. But the bicoastal bubbles still have a lot to learn from one another.
The Lincoln Initiative invited me and other D.C.-types on a tour of several Bay Area civic and political tech firms, including Crowdpac and Brigade. The leaders of these start-ups demonstrated a deep commitment for improving American politics by making public participation easier and more satisfying. They have developed sophisticated new online tools designed to draw more people into the political system and make it easier to find and organize like-minded fellow citizens. The scale of their ambition to help Americans re-engage with the democratic system is inspiring.
I was struck along my tour by how the tools these firms were developing focused on a single critical problem within the current political system, whether it be the dominance of mega-donors in campaign finance or the difficulty of building networks of like-minded voters. In the context of the Silicon Valley bubble’s fondness for elevator pitches of business plans, this makes sense (Brigade’s Matt Mahan, for example, described Brigade as the “LinkedIn for politics.”)
But few in Washington would take the approach that the difficulties of effective governance at the federal level can be solved by a killer app. Our system of government is shaped by countless competing priorities and power dynamics. Simply adding more of something to (or taking it out from) the system is unlikely to generate much change in a modern democracy.
Democracy Fund’s Governance Program, for example, learned in the process of constructing our systems map that problems of campaign finance and civic engagement combine with other factors to affect the performance of the federal system in complex ways. As some D.C.-based civic tech firms and nonprofits believe, there may be greater leverage in improving the responsiveness of federal politics by focusing first on solutions that can strengthen government institutions. Without doing so, devising new online tools to amplify the public’s voice simply adds more noise to an already cacophonous system.
Congress can be a peculiar and frustrating place. The perspective of Washington insiders can help Silicon Valley create tools that align with how the institution really works and how members and staff do their jobs. With this awareness, the enormous technical talent present in the Bay Area can better be brought to bear on the challenges facing our democracy.
The work of bridging the bicoastal bubbles on civic tech by groups like the Lincoln Initiative is a great first step in this effort. Hopefully in the near future, techies can leave their own bubbles and head east.
In my years of service on Capitol Hill, I saw first hand that Congress is full of good people driven to make our world a better place. Yet for far too many Americans, Congress is not fulfilling its responsibilities as a representative body. Why? And can it be helped?
The Democracy Fund’s Governance Initiative spent much of the past year seeking to understand how Congress could better respond to the needs and demands of citizens. To explore how we might better understand the systems that drive Congress, we began with the framing question, “How is Congress fulfilling or failing to fulfill its obligations to the American people?”
It didn’t take long to conclude that the institution is failing to do so.
Using the work of our funding partner, the Madison Initiative of the Hewlett Foundation, as a base, we pursued the broad and substantive question of what dynamics are the most significant in contributing to this dysfunction. Through that understanding, we can start to piece together what can be done to address them.
To that end, we’ve published the first public iteration of our systems map, Congress and Public Trust. We have been gathering feedback from a wide-range of stakeholders, and welcome additional thinking and ideas.
Mapping Congress and Public Trust
Last Spring, we convened a group of experts on Congress—scholars, former members of Congress and staff, and active supporters of the institution—who helped us explore the key narratives that drive the system. A ‘core story’ quickly emerged.
With expanded access to and use of the Internet by the public, communications to Congress have dramatically accelerated. The money infusing politics intensifies the pressures on an institution ill-prepared to process, let alone interpret and meet them, further weakening congressional capacity and reducing satisfaction of both among members and the public at large. This has contributed to trust in the institution falling to an all-time low.
With growth in dissatisfaction, some citizens “double down” to increase pressure on leaders, but the public is increasingly “opting out” and disengaging from the system—leaving only the loudest, shrillest, and most polarizing voices to feed the hyper-partisanship characterizing our current politics. Congress, conceived in Article One of our Constitution as the leading branch of our federal government, is becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of Americans.
Our Congress and Public Trust map describes the factors that are intensifying this process, inside and outside the institution. A long stretch of voter dissatisfaction and important demographic shifts within the two-party system have led to increasing intensity of competition for majorities in Congress. This historic level of competition has led the parties to stake out more stark ideological differences, driving their partisan constituencies further apart philosophically. As the parties and their constituents have fewer ideas in common, hyper-partisan behavior within the electorate and among those elected to Congress increases, winnowing the possibility for compromise and dragging down congressional function.
At the same time, the institution’s ability to formulate thoughtful, cooperative policy solutions has diminished. Some members (and many challengers) have responded to decreased public satisfaction by running against Washington, demonizing the institution, and reducing the institution’s resources to the breaking point. Loss of institutional expertise exacerbated by increased staff turnover has weakened policy-making capacity and increased the influence of outside experts, some of whom also proffer campaign donations. In fact, money flows throughout our systems map, depicted by factors with green halos. Further research through creation of another systems map focused on money and politics is forthcoming and will be aimed at deepening our understanding of this phenomenon.
Where do we go from here?
OK, you say. We know Congress isn’t working well; public dissatisfaction is at an all-time high and politics is as nasty as it has ever been. This map basically depicts a death spiral. What do we do about it?
A systems map helps identify leverage opportunities—places where smaller levels of effort lead to disproportionate impact. And leverage opportunities inform strategy. As we work to identify leverage opportunities and develop strategy, several themes are emerging.
First, despite this story of profound dysfunction, there are bright spots within the system. Many members of Congress and their staffs still possess what we call “servant’s hearts,” meaning they are driven by a call to public service. We know staff and members want to be effective, despite being stuck in a cycle of diminished resources. We also see a bright spot in the ability of outside partners to help Congress become more efficient and effective—to “work smarter.” As a result, we are thinking about how we can best support and empower servants’ hearts across the institution by more effectively enabling substantive work and deliberation.
Second, we believe that the institution’s failure to respond to increasing communication is driving public dissatisfaction and disengagement. We cannot simply invite greater public engagement without making sure Congress has strengthened its ability to respond. Without these investments first, we risk further alienating those we are trying to re-engage.
We have to ask, therefore, how we can help Congress develop more efficient tools to listen to the public, process the overwhelming amount of information, and invite more interaction from constituent groups, all while better managing the volume of communications from advocacy groups.
Third, once Congress’s capacity to listen and respond to the public is increased, can we help members and staff build a more functional culture that responds less reflexively to fear, elevating the leadership strength of members and staff? Members currently have too little incentive to act beyond partisan teamsmanship. Are there interventions we can make to help alleviate some of the political pressure members feel and encourage them to better withstand hyper-partisan heat? Can we help them find courage to cooperate across the aisle and strengthen bipartisan relationships that offer a foundation for institutional progress?
Finally, the cost of running for office has risen exponentially, driven by pressures from the political system we call the “Political-Industrial Complex.” Our map clearly illustrates how the need to raise campaign funds ripples across the congressional system. Reducing the amount of time spent by members fundraising would free them to focus more on legislation and remove some partisan invective from their messaging. We also see a potential bright spot using emerging campaign techniques that rely on cheaper media, and are considering exploring whether, if accelerated, they could disrupt the dominance of the political-industrial complex by reducing money on the demand side of its predominant business model.
We are knee deep in strategy development work and have some distance to go. We expect that as we continue to learn our analysis will evolve. In fact, learning and evolution is the essence of understanding the system, because by definition, it is always changing. It is our hope that by collaborating with partners across the field, existing grantees, and most importantly, with Congress itself, the Democracy Fund can play a constructive role in helping strengthen the institution and our democracy as a whole.
You can explore the map and its elements here. As you do, we hope you will tell us how to better describe and illuminate the dynamics of the Congress and Public Trustsystem. Please email us at congressmap@democracyfund.org to share your feedback or related resources.
Just over 18 months ago, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published recommendations by its Commission on Political Reform (CPR) to address the hyper-partisanship characterizing American politics.
BPC initiated its Healthy Congress Index last year to measure progress on several key issues, including the number of days Congress spends in session; the openness of the Senate debate and amendment process; and the strength of “regular order” in the congressional committee process, floor debate, and conference committees.
This week—on the heels of the Republican congressional retreat designed to outline priorities and issues for the remainder of the 114th Congress—BPC released its latest quarterly assessment of Congress’s ability to effectively govern.
The diagnosis? There are signs of hope, but still too little function in the system.
Based on the metrics of the Index, even with the upheaval of a new Speaker, the 114th Congress has made some progress. The ability of committees to make policy and resolve differences has improved.
Bills Ordered Reported By Committee
The number of days the House and Senate were in session fell short of the CPR’s recommendations and House Rules still allowed for fewer amendments to be offered, but the Senate spent more days working in Washington.
Working Days
The Senate also considered many more amendments compared with recent years—bearing out Majority Leader McConnell’s stated desire to return to “regular order.”
Senate Amendments Considered
At the recent GOP retreat, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader McConnell outlined their respective plans for the year. These included a more ambitious policy agenda on Ryan’s part, and a shared commitment by the two leaders to return to a more functional Congress—one that exercises its power of the purse on time in the annual appropriations process, conducts more effective oversight, and produces agreements on key legislation. These are also positive signs.
Time will tell whether they will be able to deliver—and whether we will continue to see progress in BPC’s “Healthy Congress” assessment—in the coming election year.
Looking back at my first year at the Democracy Fund, I can say working with a group of people truly committed to engaging the whole political spectrum is a remarkable and educational experience—beyond anything I could have imagined.
Since I joined the Democracy Fund, the Governance Program has been working to develop new approaches to understanding our nation’s system of governance as well as the forces of hyperpartisanship that currently render the system unable to function effectively. Nearly one year on, I can say working with a group of people representing all sides of the political spectrum has been challenging but productive.
For me, the chance to combine a quarter century of Hill experience with systems thinking to more deeply understand the system of Congress—and where the greatest opportunities to reduce dysfunction exist—has been unique. The space to build a team within the Governance Program of individuals equally committed to the more effective functioning of government has been rewarding. And the ability to foster collaboration among existing organizations, help new innovative organizations expand, and encourage them all to collaborate to deepen their impact in the space has been truly energizing.
Among the challenges we have faced has been developing a strategy that reflects our knowledge and our values while continuing our grantmaking practice in an effort to impact the urgent challenges we hope to address. Described fondly within Democracy Fund as “building the plane while flying it,” we are grateful to have metaphorically experienced pilots and mechanics on board to help us stay in the air. This infrastructure has enabled the Governance team to support our colleagues by attracting partners that reflect the ideological diversity of the American people, as reflected in their elected officials; develop and support new programs to help build relationships among members of Congress and their staffs; develop technology to enhance congressional constituent engagement systems; identify best practices and train congressional offices to more fully utilize them; and create strategies to advance efforts to “fix Washington” by creating more open and accessible legislative processes, all while developing and refining our strategic plan.
Looking forward to the next year, the Governance Program is working with a range of stakeholders to ask some hard questions. Specifically: How can we build on our existing approach to not only support existing organizations, but incentivize innovation as well? How can we support the institution of Congress by strengthening its operating systems and processes? How can we expand the ability of those who work in Congress to use those systems more effectively? And, how can we incentivize government officials, specifically members of Congress, to behave in ways that increase the functionality of government, support bipartisan working relationships, and reward civility?
We know the answers aren’t easy. But we’ve known that all along. It took us a generation to achieve this state of dysfunction; it will take more than a year and many voices, organizations, and public officials to solve the challenges. After all, the essence of systems thinking is that with so many variables, and so many interrelationships, the system is constantly changing and the work is never really done.
At the Democracy Fund, we are working to walk the walk when it comes to bipartisanship in our organization and in the field we are seeking to build as we work to strengthen our system of government.
All in all, a pretty good year, and even more exciting learning to look forward to.
For the past 11 months, the Democracy Fund’s Governance Program has been working to develop new approaches to understanding our nation’s system of governance and the forces of hyperpartisanship that currently render that system asymmetrical and dysfunctional.
Nearly one year on, I can say the opportunity to work with a group of people truly committed to representing all sides of the political spectrum has been remarkable and educational beyond anything I could have imagined.
The chance to put a quarter century of experience to use in more deeply understanding the system of Congress – – and where the greatest opportunities for leverage to reduce dysfunction existed – – has been unique.
The space to build a team within the governance program of individuals equally committed to the more effective functioning of government has been rewarding.
And the ability to create collaborations among existing organizations, help new innovative organizations expand, and encourage them all to develop collective impact in the space has been truly energizing.
Among the key challenges we have faced has been developing a strategy that reflects our knowledge and our values while continuing our grantmaking practice in an effort to impact the urgent challenges we hope to address. Described fondly within Democracy Fund as “building the plane while flying it,” we are grateful to have both metaphorically experienced pilots and mechanics on board to help us stay in the air. This infrastructure has enabled the Governance team to support our colleagues by attracting partners that reflect the ideological diversity of the American people, as reflected in their elected officials; develop and support new programs to help build relationships among members of Congress and their staffs; develop technology to enhance congressional constituent engagement systems, identify best practices and train congressional offices to more fully utilize them; and create strategies to advance efforts to “fix Washington” by creating more open and accessible legislative processes, all while developing and refining our strategic plan.
Looking forward to the next year, the governance program is asking itself some hard questions. Specifically: how can we build on our existing work to not just support existing organizations, but incentivize them to evermore groundbreaking work? How can we continue to support the institution of Congress, by strengthening it’s operating systems and processes, as well as the ability of those who work in Congress to use those systems more effectively? And, How can we incentivize government officials, specifically members of Congress, to behave in ways that increase the functionality of government, support bipartisan working relationships, and reward civility?
We know the answers aren’t easy. But we’ve known that all along. It took us a generation to achieve this state of dysfunction; it will take more than a year to fulfill the democracy fund’s mission of increasing engagement, strengthening the integrity of our elections, and improving the functionality of our government. And after all, the essence of systems thinking is that with so many variables, and so many interrelationships, the system is constantly changing and the work is never really done.
But in the Democracy Fund we have an organization that is attempting to not only talk the walk talk, but walk the walk – – of fly the plane—in our teams, in the larger organization, and in the field we are seeking to build as we work to strengthen our system of government.
All in all, a pretty good year, and even more exciting learning to look forward to.
There’s some irony in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) releasing its third quarterly Healthy Congress Index two weeks after House Republicans failed to agree on a candidate for Speaker. And earlier this month, the search for a new leader intensified in Washington as the nonpartisan group No Labels convened more than 1,500 Problem Solvers and 8 presidential candidates in New Hampshire for a convention on finding common ground.
The coming months will reveal how the recent actions of a few members of the Freedom Caucus will play out politically, and how those actions will impact emerging signs of health in American democracy as seen in the work of organizations like BPC and No Labels Foundation (both of which are Democracy Fund grantees).
Healthy political parties play an important role in effective, functioning legislatures. But our government’s congressional majority, believing it depended on large numbers to enact a policy mandate to combat the Executive Branch, tolerated members willing to put politics above the basic institutional integrity of the House.
At the Democracy Fund, we are working to make sense of these complex problems and to open ourselves up to new, creative solutions. Our process includes mapping the systems of Congress, with the goal of helping our Governance Program better understand Congress and the hyperpartisanship that has recently characterized it. Our hope is to help the institution – and the dedicated members and staff who work there – to develop more efficient systems to facilitate its functions and to empower more effective leaders in service of our country.
Over recent weeks, the question of whether the system as we have understood it can continue to function became more urgent. So long believing that the common enemy of big government and overregulation would ultimately keep their team united, House leadership misunderstood that the real goal of some appears to have been to break the system entirely.
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s assessment of the Healthy Congress and No Labels’ Problem Solvers aside, time will tell how this episode will affect our political system’s ability to function—of the people, by the people and for the people.
Ever wondered what it would look like if Congress worked a bit more like a tech innovator in Silicon Valley? Think Congress might benefit from adopting new, creative tech tools that better connect members to constituents, help strapped Hill staff track legislation, or facilitate bipartisan dialogue among members?
These questions point to a relatively new approach to improving the way our Congress and state legislatures work. A field that has traditionally focused solely on solutions rooted in process reforms and relationship-building efforts is exploring the ways technology and digital platforms can decrease dysfunction, increase civility, and improve communication between voters and their elected officials. One of the intriguing angles of this approach, beyond the innovative power of digital platforms, is the potential to bring together experts from a variety of fields who might not otherwise meet, let alone collaborate.
The upcoming #Hack4Congress DC, the third event in a series organized by the OpenGov Foundation and Harvard’s Ash Center, is an example of this approach in practice.
#Hack4Congress DC, which the Democracy Fund is pleased to co-sponsor, will bring together designers, journalists, congressional staff, policy wonks, technologists, academics, and other experts for two days of collaborative problem-solving around specific challenges. After two days, the groups will present their work to a panel of judges.
Previous winners include MyCRS – a service that creates a safe space for offices to query data, explore the effects of controversial positions, and helps reduce dependence on lobbyists as a source of information. A unique submission that helps better connect members and their staff to constituents and their stances on important issues. You can see more of the submissions and winners from the #Hack4Congress events in San Francisco and Cambridge.
Registration for the April 29th – May 30th #Hack4Congress in Washington, DC is open —and you can submit project ideas here. The winner of #Hack4Congress will have an opportunity to present their team’s new solution for Congress to several lawmakers in late May.
Congress members on the steps of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, on Friday.
Yesterday, at the foot of the Pettus Bridge, thousands of people marked the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday. President Obama opened his speech by placing that day among the most crucial in American history saying, “There are places, and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war — Concord and Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character — Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral. Selma is such a place.”
That fact was born out by the unprecedented congressional delegation of nearly 100 members that joined Congressman John Lewis and the Faith & Politics Institute, a Democracy Fund grantee, on this weekend’s pilgrimage to Alabama. The delegation, which I was fortunate enough to join, followed the path of history, retracing the route of the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery. As helicopters, patrol cars, and motorcycles of the Alabama State Police provided an honor escort to Congressman Lewis along the route, I could not help but be so very grateful for how different this ride was from 50 years ago and for how far we have come since the March on Washington, which took place the week I was born.
We then joined Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush; congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy; Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions; Alabama Representatives Terri Sewell, Martha Roby, Bradley Byrne, and so many more at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We crossed it not only with Congressman Lewis but with David Goodman, whose brother Andrew joined the Freedom Summer and was murdered in Mississippi, along with James Chaney and Michael Schwerner, for daring to work to protect the “imperative of citizenship” about which President Obama spoke so eloquently yesterday.
Traveling this path and living this history offers new meaning and insight into the enormity of the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in securing the right to vote for so many Americans. Remaining vigilant in protecting our democratic freedoms requires honoring the memory of dark events like Bloody Sunday.
This historic Pilgrimage is one way the common faith traditions of members of Congress can help move us to action as Americans. Coming together across the partisan divide to commemorate this seminal moment in our nation’s history offers the opportunity to think anew, act anew, and help forge new bonds outside of the context of party politics and gridlock.
While we no longer live in the era of Jim Crow, the march for freedom continues. Our democracy continues to face serious challenges in creating responsive elections, in ensuring voters have the information they need to make informed choices, in reducing government dysfunction, and in better securing voting rights for the future.
The participants on this trip came with a range of experiences – some were Civil Rights Leaders, some struggled in their own communities, and some are too young to remember this tumultuous period of American history. But each honors an era in American history that strove to bring the country together to address the deep oppression of racism. It reminds us of how far we’ve come and underscores how we still must work to strengthen our democracy.
As Senator Rob Portman wrote last week, “These challenges will not be easily overcome. Doing so will take all of us — from churches to community organizations, from living rooms to boardrooms, from the grassroots all the way to Capitol Hill — working together with the same unity of purpose that inspired a nation fifty years ago. We need that same faith, that same unwillingness to bow in the face of difficulty, no matter how long the road may seem.”
The path forward won’t be easy, but this pilgrimage is an opportunity for members of Congress—and all Americans—to reflect on the opportunity we share as Americans to move forward from this powerful experience together.
Over the past few months, with the support of the Democracy Fund, we at Bloggingheads.tv have been trying to show that, even in today’s highly partisan atmosphere, policy disagreements can be expressed civilly—and, what’s more, even ideological opponents can find things they agree on.
In a certain sense, this has been our mission ever since Bloggingheads.tv was created in 2005. From the beginning we found that when ideological antagonists have a face-to-face conversation, their civilizing instincts usually kick in. What’s different about our new project, The Good Fight, is our attempt, in collaboration with The Atlantic, to make this civilizing effect visible beyond the small but devoted audience of politics and policy aficionados who come to the Bloggingheads site to watch meaty discussions that can go on for 30, 45, even 60 minutes.
Here is how The Good Fight works: We host a video debate on some policy issue, and the moderator encourages the debaters to crystallize their disagreements but also to highlight any areas of agreement they may have. The whole conversation is shown on Bloggingheads.tv, and, in addition, we distill the results into a highlight reel of only four or five minutes in length. That’s what gets distributed on The Atlantic, the aim being to reach a broader audience than we normally reach, including people who won’t invest as much time in a policy discussion as will traditional Bloggingheads.tv viewers.
So what have we learned from this experiment?
Well, for one thing, we’ve learned that, though 4 or 5 minutes may seem short by Bloggingheads standards, to many of today’s internet denizens, that’s an eternity.
Some commenters on the Atlantic’s site have demanded that we just print a transcript—it’s faster to read than to watch and listen, after all. Others have suggested that, if they’re going to invest as much as four or five minutes in a video, they want something slickly produced, with vivid graphics, arresting animation, and so on. One Atlantic commenter recently wrote, “If you want to produce a video about it, then produce a video about it. The point of video is ‘show me’ rather than ‘tell me’.”
To be sure, some of the videos have done pretty well. A debate between Andrew Sullivan and David Frum on the legalization of marijuana got thousands of views and was shared 700 times on Facebook. And that’s not bad—especially given that the Atlantic precedes each video
with a 30-second ad, thus discouraging casual viewers from sticking around. Still, most of the videos haven’t done as well as the Frum-Sullivan debate.
And maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. If you reflect on the last time that you clicked on a video, you may find that it involved something visually compelling: footage of a storm or an unruly demonstration, say. And if the video was of two people talking, there’s a pretty good chance that there was heated debate, perhaps including a sustained rant. We all like drama, and the internet gives us so much of it to choose from that less dramatic if more edifying content faces an uphill battle for attention.
In any event, we’re proud to have produced some of that edifying content. Good Fight videos have shown that, even though committed partisans are often reluctant to cede ideological ground, points of agreement can almost always be found. For example, Sullivan and Frum agreed that marijuana can harm teenage brains. And NSA critic Conor Friedersdorf admitted that spying on foreign heads of state is appropriate, while Edward Lucas, a supporter of the NSA, conceded that Edward Snowden’s revelations about bulk metadata collection benefited the American public. And in a debate on whether to raise the minimum wage, Tim Noah agreed that placing the minimum wage too high would hurt employment, while Glenn Loury conceded that indexing the minimum wage to inflation made political and economic sense.
Our experiment is far from over. In collaboration with the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts, we’re going to conduct a rigorous study on the effects that such agreements can have on the viewing audience. For example, will conservatives who see liberal Tim Noah concede that point about minimum wage be more open to the liberal side of the debate than conservatives who only see disagreement between Noah and Loury? The study is scheduled to take place in June, and we’re eager to see the results.
Robert Wright is a journalist, the Editor-In-Chief of Bloggheads.tv, and President of the Nonzero Foundation.
“Compromise” is a dirty word in today’s political environment. To admit to making a compromising implies weakness and a lack of principle. In their new book, “The Spirit of Compromise,” Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson recall a 2010 interview of Speaker John Boehner on CBS’s 60 Minutes:
JOHN BOENER: We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do.
LESLIE STAHL: But governing means compromising.
BOEHNER: It means working together.
STAHL: It also means compromising. …
BOEHNER: When you say the word “compromise” … a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re going to sell me out…”
STAHL: Why won’t you say – you’re afraid of the word.
BOEHNER: I reject the word.
By design, our political system does not function without compromise. While partisans on both sides may hold out for the day in which they control super majorities who can make decisions at will, the reality is that these circumstances are rare and temporary. Failure to accept the need for compromise privileges the status quo and robs our political system of the capacity to solve problems. Compromise need not entail a violation of core values, but it does often require giving up some battles and letting the other side win something. To political leaders who are stuck in a permanent campaign, the idea of losing anything is unacceptable, which takes any compromise off the table. Gutmann and Thompson write that improving mutual respect and trust among political leaders can help shift this mindset and make compromise possible. They write:
“Because in politics motives are usually suspect and bargaining leverage often uncertain, capitulating to opponents is an ever-present fear. Mutual respect is an indispensable antidote. Without it, the parties to a compromise have little reason to believe that they are getting as much as they can reasonably expect, and they cannot assure their supporters that they are not selling out. Political leaders who combine being principled partisans with cultivating close relationships with their partisan opponents bring both the intrinsic and the instrumental values of mutual respect to the table when the time for compromise is ripe.”
Mutual respect cannot solve everything that is plaguing our politics – it may only be a small part of the solution. Real political incentives – votes, money, promotions – often stand in the way and can overpower any good will that exists between people. But some modicum of trust and respect is often a pre-condition to solving problems and can make a real difference. With this in mind, I’m happy to share that the Democracy Fund has added a new member of our portfolio aimed at encouraging bipartisan problem solving – the No Labels Foundation. As you may know, the No Labels Foundation is the educational arm of No Labels – a group of Democrats, Republicans, and independents dedicated to a new politics of problem solving in America. They join the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Institute for Civil Discourse, and the Faith & Politics Institute in our portfolio of organizations working to ensure that our government has the capacity to rise to the challenges facing our nation. Over the past year, 82 Members of Congress have joined a Problem Solvers Coalition organized by No Labels to encourage greater communication and collaboration among political leaders from both parties. The No Labels Foundation has organized educational events in order to foster greater trust among these political leaders, their staff members, and other key stakeholders in Washington. By building relationships across the aisle within the policy making community, the No Labels Foundation believes it can foster an environment of trust among policy makers and their staff members. Their approach to building personal relationships between political leaders from opposing parties and focusing attention on common interests is well aligned with our aim at the Democracy Fund. I’ve personally attended several events convened by the organization to foster dialogue among policy makers. What has stood out more than anything else is how rare these opportunities seem to be where leader can get to know colleagues from the other side and identify space for genuine common ground. My sense is that there is a real hunger for these opportunities, especially among newer members. The Democracy Fund will continue to explore how structural changes – like redistricting reform and changes to Congressional procedures – can further shift incentives in our political system. But we are enthusiastic about the work that grantees like the No Labels Foundation are doing to contribute to a more productive governance process.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
