In America, we have lived our whole lives in the midst of a great compromise: a nation of smaller communities joined by a central authority. Our government is constructed by a system of checks and balances that are meant to encourage those with varying opinions to participate in government. With so many people encouraged to participate, our system of government often facilitates disagreement — it is simply a fact of our political environment. This disagreement, which often leads to argument, is meant to serve as a check to keep one side from growing too powerful and ensure that all voices have a chance to be heard. Disagreement and argument, however, are not meant to drive political sides away from one another, but are meant to be a way to find a workable compromise for the common good of the country.
Today, however, the two main political parties have become increasingly polarized, shifting away from a political center in which they can find common ground and compromise. This is especially seen in Congress, where most of the country's governing occurs. The parties are finding it harder to work together productively, let alone compromise. This has lead to increasing gridlock and frustration from the American public. It seems that more and more members of Congress are voting in accordance with their party in order to block the other side, rather than voting to actually accomplish anything. Bipartisan compromise is becoming an extremely rare and coveted experience. In her 2012 Washington Post article “Why I’m Leaving the Senate,” Senator Olympia Snowe stated:
Congress is becoming more like a parliamentary system — where everyone simply votes with their party and those in charge employ every possible tactic to block the other side. But that is not what America is all about, and it’s not what the Founders intended. In fact, the Senate’s requirement of a supermajority to pass significant legislation encourages its members to work in a bipartisan fashion.
Simply, she is saying that the system, which should foster cooperation and compromise for the common good of the country, has shifted to produce mostly argument and gridlock.
This graphic from a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, shows the growing amount of political polarization in the United States. In 1994, Bill Clinton was president, while in 2004 it was George Bush. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush were considered to be more in the political center, than on the extreme right or left. However, since these more centrally minded administrations, the country has steadily become more polarized, and with it, more gridlocked. When President Obama was elected, a group called the Tea Party rose up from the ranks of extreme conservatives, with the goal of curtailing government spending. For much of America, it seemed that the goal of each political side was to stop the other from accomplishing anything. In actuality, though, their goal should have been to accomplish things together. Yet in recent history the left and the right, each threatened by the power of the other, have largely refused to work together. This has lead to a political environment that seems to produce more argument and ill will than legislation that could help improve the country. This political environment has also made it difficult for presidential candidates who lean more to the middle. Candidates that lean more to the middle of the ideological spectrums could have more of a chance at fostering cooperation and compromise. Yet, middle leaning candidates often lack the support of their own now extremely idealistic parties and cannot garner enough votes to win big elections.
In this environment where it seems that candidates who lean extremely to one side or the other, bipartisan compromise will continue to suffer. We need parties who will work to create legislation for the common good of the country rather than blocking their opponents from getting something done. Our political system is meant to foster disagreement, but with compromises coming out the other end. Yes, we are encouraged to be different and to express our opinions, but having those opinions won’t matter if we cannot work with those who disagree with us in order to come up with solutions to the country’s problems.
