Political Party Compromise In Congress

The political party compromise in Congress is considered part of the democratic process but often takes suggested legislation and laws, which are needed and helpful for the public, and makes the original legislation or law impotent or useless. The merits of the original legislation or law is watered down by the creation, presentation, and ratification process due to amendments or additions based on party lines. A non-compromising ratification process can only be accomplished if the creation, presentation and voting processes are changed making Congressional party line votes and alliances impossible. There should be no compromise in Congress and the only consideration when voting on these far reaching legislative actions is what is best for
the American citizens.
The party compromises in Congress are considered by many as needed and necessary in the democratic process. In The Mindset of Political Compromise written by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson they make the statement,”Political compromise is difficult in American democracy even though no one doubts it is necessary.” In the paper Gutmann and Thompson cite the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) and the Patient protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) as two of the great party compromises in Congress which support their opinion of the need for compromise. When Gutmann and Thompson explain their beliefs on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) and the Patient protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) they state,” All the supporters of the TRA gained something they desired, but they all also made concessions that flew in the face of their most principled reasons for supporting comprehensive tax reform in the first place.” (Gutmann and Thompson) Their paper further explained that ACA caused,”…opponents taking advantage of the break to mobilize opinion against the pending proposals—often distorting them in the process.” (Gutmann and Thompson).
Even though Gutmann and Thompson state compromise is needed in the democratic process their own words say the opposite. Their statements, “also made concessions that flew in the face of their most principled reasons”, and “---often distorting them in the process” show how the system of compromise is flawed. If the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and Affordable Care Act of 2010 had merit in themselves and were good for the citizens why are concessions and distortions needed and considered part of the democratic
process?
The belief compromise is a part of the democratic process and needed or necessary is wrong and only supported by how many see and view it as normal due to politics in modern times. If we consider what the democratic process is we will have a better understanding whether compromise is a part of its original meaning. The democratic process typically involves a majority vote to approve an action or plan or get someone elected. Sometimes the process is used to pick representatives, such as Congressmen, who then are expected to vote based on their constituent’s beliefs or needs. As a representative of the people, in the democratic process, those in Congress should be voting based on the merits of a purposed legislation or law. The idea majority rules is what the democratic process is based on and would work well if this process continued to the vote and ratification of legislation and law in Congress. The problem with the current system and processes in Congress is the majority rules idea is not from the people or based on their needs but totally based on party lines.
The compromise in Congress should not be considered a democratic process but capitalism in its oddest form. The definition for capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market” (Merriam Webster). The pushing factors in a compromise are made by individuals (private) who are looking for benefits (capital) by making decisions of their goods (votes) in Congress (free market) for gain. While many may say it is a stretch to look at Congress as a free market I do not. Many of those in Congress are essentially selling their votes to add or change purposed legislation or law. This selling of votes for gain, by definition, sounds like capitalism. While some in Congress may have good intentions when making their compromises I do not agree that this is the democratic process or the best way for Congress to complete their assigned tasks. It is too easy when privately selling your capital or vote or making a business like deal to miss the true reason you were voted into office in the first place. The business world type transactions being made in Congress and the shady deals when trying to pass laws or legislation gives us a clear picture of how the “democratic” process of compromise in Congress is a free market.
The citizens want and demand to be represented in Congress without deals and compromise.
In Steven L. Taylor’s report Americans Want Their Leaders to Stand and Fight he states, “Nearly half of America—including nearly two thirds of Republicans and 53 percent of independents—admires political leaders who refuse to compromise” and, “The survey found 49 percent of all respondents admire political leaders who stick to their positions without compromising.” His report goes on to state how no compromise in a democracy is impossible due to all interests and needs being impossible to fill. Taylor’s report clearly states a lack of any compromise will maintain the status quo and nothing would be accomplished. I agree with Taylor’s report that compromise is sometimes needed or the status que will be what we are left with. But, this is only because of the current process of creating, presenting, and voting Congress is currently using. If Congress is one political party heavy the only way anything can be accomplished in the current system is through compromising. This is not what the voters want based on what was stated by the voters in Taylor’s report. The voters are clearly looking for their representatives to stand up for them and their needs with little to no compromise. The issue with not compromising in today’s system is nothing will occur, so what needs to change is the process so compromising everything is not needed to accomplish
something.
The best way to accomplish the tasks Congress was hired for, without the need for compromise, is a secret creation, secret presentation, and a secret vote for all purposed legislation and law. This avoids the parties and party lines being more important than the merits of the legislation or law and the only thing taken into account when voting. By changing the way voting is done in Congress the need for the “democratic” process will be more fulfilled as the majority will rule, not the deals being made behind closed doors based on party affiliation.