Podcast Summary
Era of constant political competition: This era of frequent power shifts between Democrats and Republicans leads to significant changes in political behavior and motivations
We're currently experiencing a unique era of political competition in American politics, as control of the presidency and Congress frequently changes hands. This competition alters political behavior in profound ways, according to political scientist Frances Lee in her new book "Insecure Congress and the Perpetual Campaign." For decades, close elections and divided government have been the norm, with no presidential landslide since 1984. Lee argues that this era of constant competition is behind many changes in American politics, including the actions of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the challenges faced by President Donald Trump in understanding presidential rhetoric and leadership in a divided government. By understanding this competition, we can gain valuable insights into the current political landscape and the motivations of key players.
Understanding the unusual balance of power in US Congress since 1980: Long periods of one-party control in US Congress are often due to exogenous shocks to the political system, such as the Civil War or the Great Depression.
The even balance of power between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress since 1980 is unusual in the context of American political history. While it's commonly believed that parties adapt and change to remain in power, long periods of one-party control can only be understood in light of exogenous shocks to the political system. For instance, the fallout from the Civil War led to a long Republican majority, while the Great Depression and World War II preserved Democratic control. Despite the competitive nature of presidential elections, party stability seems to be more pronounced in Congress. This historical context sheds light on the current era of narrow majorities and switching party control. It's an intriguing question why we've had these long periods of one-party dominance, and understanding this requires examining the impact of significant crises on the political landscape.
Political competition drives nationalization: Competition in politics increases the importance of controlling institutions and institutions drive more money and short-term focus in elections
Competition in politics drives the nationalization of politics, not the other way around. The increased competitiveness in congressional elections has led to a heightened importance of controlling the institutions, making the stakes at the national level much higher. This competition, in turn, has given rise to national groups and the involvement of more money in local and congressional elections. Politicians and parties respond to this competitive environment by focusing on short-term goals and reducing incentives for bipartisan compromise. As quoted in the book "Insecure Majorities," the National Review advised Republicans against working with President Obama on anything after his election, emphasizing the importance of making a case for return to power by contrasting the opposing party's perceived failures.
Historical tensions between parties hinder bipartisanship: Political incentives can lead to gridlock as parties weigh cooperation vs. damaging the opposition for strategic gain
The incentives of the political system often work against bipartisanship and cooperation between parties, particularly when one party is out of power. Historically, some Republicans have argued that cooperating with Democrats when they're in the minority position is not the best strategy for regaining power. Instead, they believe that damaging the other party is more effective. This dynamic can lead to a lack of bipartisanship and gridlock in government. However, the party in power, such as a president, may benefit from bipartisan support as it adds legitimacy to their actions. Ultimately, the decision to cooperate or obstruct depends on each party's strategic calculations and the political context. This trade-off between cooperation and clarifying the choice for voters is a fundamental aspect of the political system.
The belief that individuals cause political gridlock is a deep-rooted assumption: Despite the political system's contradictory nature and history of successes, the current climate's toxicity calls for systemic reforms instead of blaming individuals
The current political climate in the United States, marked by intense competition and lack of bipartisanship, is a result of deep-rooted assumptions about the functioning of the political system. These assumptions, as discussed, include the belief that individuals, rather than the system itself, are to blame for political gridlock. However, political sociologists argue that the American political system, with its different branches being democratically elected yet prone to conflict, is inherently contradictory and shouldn't work. This contradiction is more evident today due to the ideological polarization of political parties. The system's history of successes in the past does not guarantee its continued functionality in the present, especially given the toxic political circumstances. To truly address the current political climate, it's essential to focus on systemic reforms rather than merely blaming individuals.
The Legitimacy Crisis in American Politics: A Battle of Ideologies and Power: The ideological divide and power struggle between the executive and legislative branches in American politics is leading to a legitimacy crisis, making it difficult for presidents to make appointments and run the government when facing a different party controlling the Senate.
American politics is facing a legitimacy crisis as a result of the increasing gap between the ideological values and the rules of the system. This was highlighted during the Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland affair, where McConnell's actions, while within his power, were seen as philosophically illegitimate. The crisis deepens as the power struggle between the executive and legislative branches intensifies, making it challenging for presidents to make executive branch appointments or run the government when facing a different party controlling the Senate. The system relies on forbearance, but when both sides are maximizing their leverage and ideological purity, the gap between how politics should work and how it actually functions widens. The current impasse over the border wall between the White House and the Democratic-controlled House illustrates this ongoing contest of competing legitimacies.
Political competition hinders effective governance: The priority of winning elections over governing and the constant power struggle between parties obstructs major issue resolutions, perpetuating gridlock in American politics.
Competition in American politics drives both sides to prioritize maximizing power over exercising forbearance, leading to a perpetual power struggle that hinders effective governance. This dynamic was evident in the partisan gridlock over Supreme Court nominations and the constant competition for control of the Senate and House. John Boehner's quote from a 2006 letter highlights the priority of winning elections over governing, further emphasizing the opposition between forbearance and competition in the political landscape. This competitive context contributes to the pervasive tendency to postpone major issue resolutions, as parties believe they may regain power soon and delaying deals allows them to hold onto more power.
Bridging the legitimacy gap through bipartisanship: Bipartisanship helps maintain political legitimacy by fostering cooperation and inclusivity, especially in a complex political landscape where parties are minority entities and partisan identities are increasingly salient.
In today's complex political landscape, bipartisanship plays a crucial role in maintaining legitimacy and addressing the needs of a diverse electorate. Wise, a financial service company, can help manage money in different currencies for individuals and businesses, making international transactions easier for 16 million customers worldwide. Regarding politics, the concept of bipartisanship has been a long-standing intuition, despite the American political system's inherent complexity and the requirement for cooperation due to its checks and balances. With both major parties being minority parties and facing skepticism from a significant portion of the electorate, bipartisanship helps bridge the legitimacy gap and fosters a more inclusive political environment. The intense competition in politics also raises the salience of partisan identities, making parties and their actions more visible to the public and solidifying commitments to partisan affiliations.
Impact of political instability on individuals in power: Political instability causes stress, anxiety, and a focus on short-term gains, impacting individuals' emotions, psychology, and identity, and hindering the political system's ability to plan for the future and compromise.
The instability of political hierarchies in today's political climate leads to heightened stress and anxiety for individuals in power, which in turn impacts their ability to plan for the future and act calmly. This constant volatility and competition for control can result in a focus on short-term gains rather than long-term benefits for the system. The neuroscientific research on stress and anxiety suggests that individuals' emotions, psychology, and identity are influenced by this struggle for power, and political scientists need to consider this broader context in their analysis. The inability to plan for the future due to the uncertainty of political hierarchies can lead to a lack of compromise and an unwillingness to accept losses, as all actions become about maintaining power in the present. This can have detrimental effects on the functioning of the political system as a whole.
Political polarization hinders effective use of power: Polarization between parties can make it difficult for presidents to persuade the opposing side and cooperate for the functioning of government
The constant preoccupation with power struggles in politics, particularly during periods of divided government, can hinder the ability of politicians to effectively use their power to make a difference. This was evident in the case of President Trump, who seemed to prioritize rallying his own side over trying to persuade the opposing party. The Beyond Ideology framework illustrates how the opposition party becomes more likely to oppose the president's ideas due to their conflict with the president's party. This polarization can make the president's job more difficult, as taking a position can alienate the opposing party and make bipartisan cooperation, which is necessary for the functioning of government, more challenging. It is unclear if persuasion of the opposing party on a large scale is even possible in today's political climate, and the experiences of recent presidents may challenge the traditional notion that one of a president's primary roles is to persuade.
Politicians can pass less divisive legislation despite gridlock on contentious issues: Despite the media focus on divisive issues, politicians can make progress on less contentious matters, passing legislation on opioids, water infrastructure, and sex trafficking in the 115th Congress.
Presidents and politicians may not be able to persuade deeply entrenched opposing sides on the most divisive issues, but they can take advantage of a permissive consensus to propose and pass legislation on less polarizing matters. The American political system is not completely dysfunctional, but it often fails to produce significant policy outcomes on high-profile, divisive issues. Instead, it functions relatively well on less contentious matters. The media's focus on these divisive issues can hinder bipartisan cooperation and the passage of legislation. Therefore, politicians may intentionally try to distract attention from certain issues to allow for their passage. The 115th Congress, for instance, managed to pass several pieces of legislation on opioids, water infrastructure, and sex trafficking despite the gridlock on more contentious issues.
Understanding the role of Congress in political challenges: Congress can influence political challenges by restraining executive ambition, forging compromise, and wielding the power of the purse as a political tool.
Certain issues may not progress if they become seen as a test of a president's performance, as it can create political incentives for opposing parties to prevent a win for the president and his party. An example given was the Toxic Substances Control Act under Obama, which was a major expansion of the EPA's authority but flew under the radar due to lack of presidential involvement in the issue. David Mayhew's book, "The Imprint of Congress," discusses how congress has historically influenced major political challenges, including its role in restraining executive ambition and forging compromise. Ira Katznelson's "Fear Itself" explores the crisis of confidence in liberal democracy during the Great Depression and Roosevelt's presidency. Lastly, Josh Chaffetz's "Congress as Constitution" examines the political relationships between the legislature and executive, highlighting the power of the purse as a political tool rather than a legal one. These books offer valuable insights into the dynamics of government institutions and their roles in addressing political challenges.
The interplay between the crown and parliament in 17th century Great Britain: When the crown had resources, it operated without parliament's consent, but when financially strained, it needed parliament's approval for appropriations. This interplay highlights the political value of pluralism and the role of a legislature in allocating power, facilitating deliberation, and ensuring public debate.
The interplay between the crown and parliament in 17th century Great Britain highlights the importance of a legislature in a system of government. When the crown had sufficient resources, it could operate without parliament's consent. However, when the crown was financially strained, it needed parliament's approval for appropriations. This interplay demonstrates the political value of pluralism and the role of a legislature in allocating power. A legislature contributes to the system by facilitating deliberation and debate, allowing for the resolution of conflicts and trade-offs among competing goods. Although not every issue results in a clear-cut outcome, the division of power makes public debate possible, ensuring that issues are addressed in a way that might not occur in a system where power is not divided. Frances Lee's insights emphasize the significance of this dynamic interbranch complex and its ability to help navigate complex political landscapes.
