Partisan Battle in the US Policymaking - Essay Example

The partisan battle in policymaking within the U.S Congress Introduction Partisanship is virtually indistinguishable from politics and governance since it is a term used to refer to party loyalty. (Brown, 1897, 7-13) US Government is formed by political parties with the result that majority parties have the ability to not only set policies but to indorse them whether or not individuals within the majority party have an opposing opinion. (Binder, 1997, 10) This is the manner in which partisanship works and Congress which is comprised of parties is no different. As will be borne out in the discussion that follows, the partisan battle rather than public interest influences much of the policy making in Congress. The US Congress The US Congress consist of the House of Representatives and the Senate both of whom are required to agree for the passage of laws in the US. (Schiller, 2000) The general powers of Congress are contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, although several amendments have added to Congressional powers. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) These powers include but are not limited to the power to regulate commerce, impose taxes, make laws, levy punishments in respect of unlawful conduct, declare wars, establish post offices, regulate the value of currencies, regulate laws for the acquisition of water and land, support and maintain the military, to declare a state of emergency and to discipline the military. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) The US Constitution requires that in order for either the House of Representatives or the Senate to conduct business a quorum is present. (US Constitution) A majority vote is required to indorse a cause of action and since Congress is typically comprised of two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans the vote is usually controlled by the controlling party with the result that partisanship determines policymaking rather than ideology. The Role of Partisanship in the US Congress Roger Scully and Samuel Patterson argue that during the 80’s and 90’s American politics developed into more “deeply entrenched partisan divisions”. (Scully and Patterson, 2001, 131-155) With the two party politics that characterizes American governance it is hardly surprising that policymaking is often split along partisan lines. (Soss and Canon, 1995, 253-174) Author Ronald Brownstein refers to recent developments in Washington as “hyperpartisanship” (Brownstein, 2007, 8) According to Brownstein partisanship functions to divide the parties and only heightens disagreements not only among Congress but in “American life.” (Brownstein, 2007, 9) Congress has been overtaken by: “...growing ideological polarization and bitter struggle between the parties to achieve or maintain majority control of the House.” (Mann and Cain, 2005, vii) Put another way, parties within Congress are united by a common electoral interest to sustain its governmental control to the extent that their collective focus goes beyond public policy. In the end, maintaining governmental control is what by and large steers Congress’s coalitions. Presidents are driven by a desire to secure their congressional party’s majority election and re-election and Congress in turn is driven by a desire to indorse the President’s party agenda. Moreover, a show of unity in Congress by the majority party is believed to strengthen that party’s chances during the election process. (Key, Jr. 1964, 688) In the two-party system that drives Congress, both parties are overcome by an electoral incentive to the extent that each party’s primary goal is to gain or regain governmental control rather than to implement policy changes. (Fiorina, 2003, Ch. 6) It therefore follows that elections are also responsible for shaping Congressional policies. Quite often a party is elected on the basis of some electoral mandate , which are created by virtue of talks in Washington and reports in the media. If the election climate creates a mandate, Congress’s agenda is formed on that basis. (Peterson, Grossback, Stimson and Gangl, 2003), 411-126) It is this perceived mandate that steers Congressional policymaking and to this end policymaking is shaped by partisan politics rather than public policy. Even if perceived mandates appear to change over time, Congress looks toward upcoming elections to influence policy changes. Partisanship has developed into such a battle for Congressional policy making in the years from 1994 that George W. Bush commented on it following his election to presidency in 200. Bush stated that it was now time to “move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of he recent past.” (Milbank, and Broder, 2004, A1) Be that as it may, partisanship in Congress did not dissipate. Democrats claimed that Bush’s tax agenda was polarizing and needed a conciliatory approach. Republicans on the other hand took the position that conciliatory approaches would only harm Bush’s presidency. (Milbank, and Broder, 2004, A1) Tensions created over congressional partisanship did however dissipate following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Congress took a largely bipartisan approach to recovery policies and the war in Afghanistan. However, matters that had nothing to do with the terror attacks and the 2003 war on Iraq was characterized by extreme partisanship in Congress. Bitter partisan battles surfaced in respect of a controversial reform package in respect of Medicare. Democrats claimed that Republicans purposely sought to exclude their vote by holding the vote late at night. Democratic senators were also not included in committees and Republicans claimed the Democrats engaged in unconstitutional filibusters in an attempt to obstruct judicial nominees by the President. (Binder, 2005, 6) Sarah Binder explains that the narrow majority by which the Republicans rule precludes any real chance of bipartisanship. Together with, “the ideological gap between parties increases” the Republicans “have few votes to spare” when they are attempting to advance “their agenda priorities.” (Binder, 2005, 6) Furthermore, polarization influences “congressional capacity” by stifling the desire to reach a compromise. As Binder explains: “In today’s electoral environment, in which both parties attempt to solidify their party ranks by gerrymandering congressional districts, incentives to compromise are few – even when acceptable agreements are in reach.” (Binder, 2005, 6) The partisanship in Congress has grown to such an extent that disagreement has taken on a purely strategic character.(Gilmour, 1995, 2) Throughout Congressional sessions each party is looking ahead to the next election with the result that neither party wants to give way to the other’s side despite the fact that they may share a similar ideology. (Binder, 2005, 6) Underlying the election mentality that fuels partisanship in Congress: “House and Senate members form both parties bemoan a decline in trust between the parties – a commodity legislators typically deem essential for making a complex legislative process work.” (Binder, 2005, 6) Political writers, Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz that foreign policy considerations that existed during the reign of the Soviet Union were such that bipartisanship within Congress was inescapable. Such concerns had the capacity to cross party lines and loyalties to a point where patriotism surpassed all else. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the new tenure toward globalization, priorities have shifted at home and new domestic tensions have largely divided Americans in much the same manner as the Vietnam War did. (Kupchan and Trubowitz, 2007) Kupchan and Trubowitz maintain that: “Today, however, the conditions that once made U.S. strategy politically solvent have disappeared. The demise of the Soviet Union and the absence of a comparable new competitor make it easier for politicians to exploit foreign policy for partisan advantage.” (Kupchan and Trubowitz, 2007) Although the September 11 attacks did serve to temporarily cross partisan lines in Congress the respite was short-lived and as previously noted, other non-September 11 related issues continued to invite partisan policy making tactics. Even with the potential for unification and bipartisanship, Kupchan and Trubowitz notes that: “...the Bust administration continues to use terrorism as a tool of partisan warfare rather than a cause for bringing the country together. As the president insinuated before the 2006 midterms, a Democratic victory would mean ‘the terrorists win and America loses.’” (Kupchan and Trubowitz, 2007) Partisanship impacts upon Congress policy making capacity in subtle areas as well. Wrangling driven by purely partisan ideology can stall progress in the policy making process. In August of last year, a number of discussions over bills were put off over “a bitter procedural fight.” (Hulse and Zeleny, 2007) New York Times writers Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny describe the clash as a culminating over several months and involved important issues such as energy, terrorist surveillance regulations and Pentagon spending. (Hulse and Zeleny, 2007) The dissension came only one month after the Democrats assumed power in the House. Demonstrating the partisan battle in Congress and how it negatively impacts upon policy making, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker and Democrat remonstrated that the Republican’s challenge to the procedural process was no more than a means of attempting to “paint Democrats as incompetent.” (Hulse and Zeleny, 2007) House Republicans on the other hand said that the issue arose when Democrats called an impromptu halt to a “roll-call vote” after it appeared that the Republicans were outvoting them “on an agricultural spending bill.” (Hulse and Zeleny, 2007) Out of the partisanship comes unsurpassable levels of mistrust. The August 2007 session of Congress clearly demonstrates the dysfunctional nature of partisanship and its negative impact on Congress’s policy making process. President Bush had insisted that Congress continue with its session until such time as it was able to implement policy changes in respect of terrorist surveillance programs. Republican House and Senate Members indorsed the President’s demands, however Democrats took the position that Republicans were merely attempting to paint a picture that presented the Democrats as “soft on terror.” Democrats explained that: “...every time they acceded to administration requests, new ones surfaced.” (Hulse and Zeleny, 2007) Partisanship has impacted the issues that are set for debate. As demonstrated in the New York Times article by Hulse and Zeleny, party politics drives dissension. In the past, matters of common humanity, such as environment concerns had the capacity to unite Congress. Now a days, nothing short of a disaster of mammoth proportions will do. (Gefshtenson, Smith and Magnum, 2006, 66-92) Aside from the futility of partisanship, perhaps the greatest difficulty with partisanship is its impact on the voting public. As more and more partisanship manifest itself in Congress the more detached the average citizen becomes. ( Apperson, 2006, 1) This is ironic since the very core of the electoral mandate is founded upon principles of democracy that the elected member proposes to take office for and by the people. Since partisanship appears to compromise these ideals of democracy and the average citizen whom Congressional Members purports to represents is detached from the process, it would appear that the democracy is in danger of systematic collapse. It would appear that if only in the interest of preserving the ideals of democracy, Congress might have to rethink its partisanship and focus on the issues in policymaking. Politicians Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas argue that partisanship is paralysing Congress’s ability to make policy decisions based on the merits of the issue. (Reno, 2008) It comes down to pseudo-electoral campaigns with one party using the debate to impugn the reputation of the other party while the issue at hand is lost in the shuffle. (Reno, 2008) The catalyst for the partisan battles are “money and power.” (Reno, 2008) Beckal and Thomas explain that: “There are people who make big money and gain pseudo-influence by stirring the pot, by polarizing the electorate, from cable TV shows to fund-raising letters that spread the idea that a policy difference means you love the country less than your opponent.” (Reno, 2008) Bibliography Apperson, Braxton. “Reconciling Partisanship with Deliberative Representative Democracy.” The Virginia News Letter, Vol. 82, No. 2, 2006, 1-6 Binder, Sarah. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. US: Cambridge University Press, 1997 Binder, Sarah. “Elections and Congress’s Governing Capacity.” Extensions, 2005, 1-7 Brown, James, Sayles. Partisan Politics: The Evil and The Remedy. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1897 Brownstein, Ronald. The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America. New York: Penguin Books, 2007 Fiorina, Morris. Divided Government. New York: Longman, 2003 Gershtenson, Joseph, Smith, Brian and Magnum, William. “Friends of the Earth? Partisanship, Party Control of Congress, and Environmental Legislation in Congress” Party and Policy, Volume 34, No. 1, 2006, 66-92 Gilmour, John. Strategic Disagreement. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995 Hulse, Carl, and Zeleny, Jeff. “Partisan Anger Stalls Congress in Final Push.” New York Times, August 4, 2007 Key, V.O. Jr. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Crowell, 1964 Kupchan, Charles and Trubowitz. “Making Peace With Americans.” Los Angeles Times, October, 21, 2007 Mann, Thomas and Cain, Bruce. Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting. Washington DC: The Brookings Institute, 2005 Milbank, Dana and Broder, David. “Hopes for Civility in Washington Are Dashed.” The Washington Post, January 18, 2004, A1 Peterson, David, Grossback, Lawrence, J., Stimson, James, A., and Gangl, Amy. “Congressional Response to Mandate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 47, 2003, 411-426  Reno, Jamie. “The Odd Couple.” Newsweek, Jan 16, 2008 Schiller, Wendy. Partners and Rivals: Representation in US Senate Delegations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Scully, Roger and Patterson, Samuel. “Ideology, Partisanship and Decision-Making in Contemporary American Legislature.” Party Politics, Vol. 7, No.2., 2001, 131-155. Soss, Joe and Canon, David. “Partisan Divisions and Voting Decisions: US, Senators, Governors, and the Rise of a Divided Federal Government.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1995, 253-274 US Constitution Read More