Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
February 7, 2016

Is Negotiating Political Agreement a Lost Art? | Procedural Politics

Voters often complain that members of Congress “can’t seem to agree on anything.” You know people are on to something when their own representatives in Washington echo the same complaint — one of the few bipartisan sounds emanating from the capital, if not in perfect harmony.

Political scientists are now weighing in on the same topic though they don’t all agree on the causes and effects of contemporary political gridlock, let alone the cures. Princeton’s Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty recently analyzed some of the popular explanations and remedies in a paper on the “Causes and Consequences of Polarization,” published as part of an American Political Science Association task report on “Negotiating Agreement in Politics.”

The authors concede that “social science research has only recently begun to help shape … discussions on the causes of polarization,” though the reform-minded are already looking for “panaceas” to mitigate its effects. Perhaps ironically, the reforms most backed by the public and press for reducing polarization — neutral redistricting, open primaries and campaign financing changes — have already been found wanting in various studies.

According to the authors, “The evidence in support of gerrymandering as a cause of polarization is not strong,” and “it is implausible that partisan primaries are a major cause of polarization.” Likewise, “there is a weak connection between campaign spending and election outcomes.”

Other reformers look to internal procedural changes in Congress as a way to reduce partisanship and gridlock. They point to the large increase in party-line votes on amendments in the House since recorded votes were first permitted in the committee of the whole in the 1970s. But this does not explain the parallel growth in polarization in the Senate.

Another explanation is the growing powers of party leaders who can exert pressures on members to vote the party line. “Unfortunately,” the authors write, “the effects of party can be recovered only under strong assumptions,” and an alternative methodology actually shows “declining party pressures in the contemporary Congress.”

Rather than look for electoral or discrete procedural fixes to reduce polarization and gridlock, the APSA task force has recommended that Congress relearn the art of deliberative decision-making. That entails using an “integrative negotiation” process in which participants discover or create joint gains beyond what was originally considered the bounds of possible agreement — what they call pie-expanding versus a fixed-pie bias.

The task force members concede “it would be naïve to think that all conflicts can be negotiated,” especially in today’s Congress. Sometimes parties and their allied interest groups prefer electoral gains over substantive solutions. In such cases, they write, “political struggle rather than negotiation may well be the better recourse for altering the status quo.”

But other issues do lend themselves to negotiation and can succeed if “the rules of collective political engagement” are followed. Those rules include a formal role for nonpartisan, technical expertise in advance of specific legislative proposals; repeated interactions among participants to nurture trustworthy behavior; penalty defaults (action-forcing deadlines); and negotiations in private settings that avoid posturing in favor of pondering.

Deliberative negotiation has occurred since the beginning of the republic, the report observes. It is now a matter of convincing Congress to “return to the basics.” The difficulty in implementing such an approach today is that Congress is time-limited while deliberation is a timeless value. Each Congress is under a two-year gun, each committee has only a few hours each week to process numerous pieces of legislation, and each member is buffeted between committees, office appointments, floor votes and fundraisers, all in truncated, three-day workweeks.

Second, it is true that more can be accomplished in candid, private discussions. Sun exposure can be malignant to good-faith bargaining. However, House and Senate rules prohibit closed committee sessions except for sensitive national security matters. Rolling back Congress’ sunshine rules is a non-starter.

Third, it is doubtful that many of today’s re-election-fixated members are willing to master the art of deliberative negotiation, let alone sit through more balanced, thorough and prolonged committee hearings and meetings. Dialing for campaign dollars takes priority.

The main obstacles to results-driven deliberation are a paucity of informed argumentation and an excess of dramacracy — acting out rather than acting on problems. Still, efforts can and should be made to restore some semblance of rational discourse in committees that empowers members of both parties to contribute and benefit. The APSA is to be commended on initiating this back-to-basics conversation.

Don Wolfensberger is a resident scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.

  • Andre Leonard

    When you spend yourself $17 trillion in debt, have 11 million illegal aliens within your midst and an economy you cannot start. It’s hard to negotiate.

    The promise just is not there. Seems the only thing they can agree on is the next distraction to present.

    • Winston Blake

      Bread and circuses… Like sports that only require one ball to play.

      • Maximum Bob

        I agree bread and circuses. That’s why McCain wants to get rid of NFL blackouts.

        But the problem with immigration reform is that in the past compromises on the issue were made longitudinally. Usually we expect compromise latitudinally whereby the lawmakers embed the compromise in the code. But, instead, with immigration one side gave and gave and gave. What was in it for them? Nothing would be enforced.

        All well and good but how to come back to the table after the precedent? After that deal with the devil? After the destruction of the democratic process? After that destruction of trust?

  • reggiec

    The basic reason is that almost every compromise for decades has moved America further toward the left and Socialism. The right has realized that if the fundamental operations go any further in that direction there will be no way to reverse it and our Republic will be gone for good.

    • John Hart

      What you say is correct. Compromise must be bound by principle and Republican leadership has stretched it’s principles to the breaking point. America is beginning to disintegrate from within. Federal government has breached it’s contract with individuals in so many ways the very nature of life is threatened. Any more compromise and the whole thing’s going to come unglued. We’re facing a greater crisis than before the mislabeled “Civil War”, when unlimited Federal power was established by the Elite who fund the campaigns of the majority of politicians, useful idiots who do their dirty work, deceived into thinking they are doing good. Individual freedom is the purpose of life and the answer to life’s problems. Government “benefits” end up benefiting no one and enslaving everyone and the take over of health care will be the final nail in the coffin.

  • Coffee Fiend

    No matter how altruistic one person may be, the human needs that he can gauge accurately are limited to a tiny fraction of society.

  • Janet W. Youngblood

    Negotiation presupposes an open mind willing to entertain new facts and to put the good of the country ahead of political party self-interest. I do not believe our electoral system any longer selects for open minds interested in civic service. No Congress is bought and sold and each puppet in their represents some very narrow interest. It is really no longer a democratic system just a major Italian free for all.

  • El Capitan

    Since it is impossible to advance without learning from trials, errors, mistakes, and accidents, civilization’s technological advance depends upon those who are willing, able, and free to blaze trails for the rest of us.

  • Lars K.

    ““The evidence in support of gerrymandering as a cause of polarization is not strong,” and “it is implausible that partisan primaries are a major cause of polarization.” Likewise, “there is a weak connection between campaign spending and election outcomes.”
    Utter hogwash. Tell me how things wouldn’t change if there was not 98% incumbency due to “safe” districts while candidates just couldn’t spend opponents into the ground and middle-of-the-road candidates were not marginalized because Independents can’t vote in a primary without being labeled as a partisan.
    Why do we always have to talk about things as 100% “cures”. Of course it wouldn’t take all of the polarization away, but you take it one (or three) steps at a time. If we do these things and find a way to truly get at least a couple non-partisan media outlets while convincing Americans that educating themselves about these things is more important than a television talent show we can be on our way (yeah, some of these things are more easily done than others…)

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...