10 CHAPTER 1|UNDERSTANDING AMERICAN POLITICS
controversial subjects, many people simply avoid them. Indeed, since the 1950s politi-
ca l scientists have found strong ev idence that people avoid discussing politics in order
to maintain social harmony.^5 Many people apply their disdain for confl ict to politi-
cians as well. “Why is there so much partisan bickering?” our students frequently ask.
“Why can’t they just get along?” Similar comments were voiced during negotiations
over the debt limit in 2011 and during many other legislative fi ghts in recent years.
The idea that confl ict is nearly always a part of politics should be no surprise.
Whereas issues on which there is consensus tend to resolve quickly, confl ictual
issues remain on the agenda as the winners try to extend their gains and the los-
ers work to roll back the policies that are currently in place. 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 offi cials, and no compro-
mise policy that would attract widespread support.
An important implication of the inevitable confl icts in A merica n politics is t hat
compromise and bargaining are essential to getting things done. Politicians who
bargain with opponents are not necessarily abandoning their principles; indeed,
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—as noted, a highly con-
troversial topic—fi nd widespread support for prohibiting government funding for
abortions, requiring parental notifi cation when a minor has an abortion, or requir-
ing doctors who perform the procedure to present their patients with information
on alternatives such as adoption.
Another implication of confl ict is that it is almost impossible to get exactly
what you want from the political process. Even when a signifi cant percentage
of the population is united behind common goals—such as supporters of Barack
Obama after the 2008 election, who favored expanding the federal government,
or Tea Party sympathizers after the 2010 midterm election, who wanted to shrink
government and eliminate regulations—these individuals almost always have to
accept something short of their ideal in order to attract enough support to imple-
ment policy cha nge. The need for comprom ise does not mea n t hat cha nge is impos-
sible, only that what is achievable often falls short of individuals’ initial demands.CONFLICT IS INHERENT IN AMERICAN
politics, a fact that was driven
home by the national debate in
2009 and 2010 over health care
reform.