What is politics? 11a problem.^9 Bureaucratic politics, congressional politics, elections, and even Supreme
Court decision making have all been studied through the lens of political conflict.^10
Despite the consensus that conflict in politics is inevitable, most people do not like
conflict, either in their personal lives or in politics. You probably have heard people
say that the three topics one should not discuss in polite company are money, religion,
and politics. Indeed, political scientists have found strong evidence that people avoid
discussing politics in order to maintain social harmony.^11
Many people apply their disdain for conflict to politicians as well. “Why is there
so much partisan bickering?” our students frequently ask. “Why can’t they just get
along?” This dislike of conflict, and of politics more generally, produces a desire for
what political scientists John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse call “stealth
democracy”—that is, nondemocratic practices such as running government like a
business or taking action without political debate. In essence, this idea reflects the
hope that everything would be better if we could just take the politics out of politics.
Hibbing and Theiss-Morse argue that, to combat this belief, we need to do a better
job of educating people about conflict and policy differences and that the failure to
do so “is encouraging students to conclude that real democracy is unnecessary and
stealth democracy will do just fine.”^12 Conflict cannot be avoided in politics; ignoring
fundamental disagreements will not make conflict go away.
The argument over abortion is a good example. Abortion rights have been a
perennial topic of debate since a 1973 Supreme Court decision held that state laws
banning abortion were unconstitutional. Surveys about abortion rights show that
public opinion spans a wide range of policy options, with little agreement about which
policy is best. (In Chapter 6, we will examine the political implications of this kind
of broad disagreement.) Such conflicts reflect intense differences of opinion that are
rooted in self-interest, ideology, and personal beliefs. Moreover, in such situations, no
matter what Congress does, many people will be unhappy with the result. You might
expect that politicians will ultimately find a compromise that satisfies everyone, but
this is not always true. In many cases, no single policy choice satisfies even a slight
majority of elected officials or citizens.
The idea that conflict is nearly always a part of politics should be no surprise.
Situations in which everyone (or almost everyone) agrees about what government
should be doing are easy to resolve: either a popular new policy is enacted or an
unpopular issue is avoided, and the debate moves off the political agenda. Although
issues where there is consensus resolve quickly and disappear, conflictual issues
remain on the agenda as the winners try to extend their gains and the losers work to roll
back policies. Thus, one reason that abortion rights is a perennial issue in campaigns
and congressional debates is that there is no national consensus on when to allow
abortions, no indication that the issue is becoming less important to citizens or elected
officials, and no sign of a compromise policy that would attract widespread support.
An important consequence of the inevitable conflicts in American politics is that
compromise and bargaining are essential to getting things done. Politicians who
bargain with opponents are not necessarily abandoning their principles; striking a
deal may be the only way to make some of the policy changes they want. Moreover,
agreement sometimes exists even in the midst of controversy. For example, surveys
that measure attitudes about abortion find widespread support for measures such as
prohibiting government funding for abortions, requiring parental notification when a
minor has an abortion, or requiring doctors who perform the procedure to present their
patients with information on alternatives such as adoption, while only 15–25 percent
(depending on the survey) think that abortion should always be illegal.^13
Another consequence of conflict is that it is almost impossible to get exactly
what you want from the political process. Even when a significant percentage of theAs long as the reason of man
continues fallible, and he is at
liberty to exercise it, different
opinions will be formed.—James MadisonOne consequence of political conflict
is that one party’s policy victories last
only until the other party wins control
of government. Here, President
Trump signs a law repealing most of
Dodd-Frank, an Obama-era measure
that imposed new regulations on the
banking industry in the wake of the
2008 financial crisis.Full_02_APT_64431_ch01_002-029.indd 11 16/11/18 1:34 PM