Why Politicians Can’t Compromise

Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak report for the LA Times on Ann Quinn’s unhappiness with the ability of Washington politicians to put partisanship aside, roll up their sleeves, and get down to work:

In 15 years of marriage they have never agreed on anything political. When she put a John Kerry sign on the lawn in 2004, he ran out and got a George W. Bush sign to plant right next to it. But when it comes to the important things — Patrick, improvements to their two-story Dutch colonial house, which car to buy — they put their differences aside and did what needed to be done. If they can figure out how to make it work, why can’t Washington?

Kevin Drum is peeved:

Eh. If Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner only needed to agree on a maintenance schedule for the Capitol Dome or how big the House motor pool needed to be, they’d get along fine too. But Ann Quinn and her husband, in 15 years of marriage, still don’t agree on anything political even though they love each other and live a wonderful life together. Shouldn’t that tell us something? If 200 Anns and 200 Johns had to decide whether to raise taxes, they wouldn’t do any better at it than Pelosi and Boehner.

I think Drum’s got this wrong. It’s not that Ann & John can agree on things because they’re less important than politics. Instead, as the article states they disagree about politics but do manage to agree “when it comes to the important things.” That’s because though policy disputes are substantively important, whether or not Ann & John reach consensus on policy issues is totally unimportant. When it comes to home renovations or raising their son, there are large gains to be made by compromising whereas when it comes to politics there’s nothing at stake so they just disagree.

The problem in congress is that though policy is a positive-sum game where it’s possible for people with sharply divergent viewpoints to forge compromises, electoral politics is a zero-sum competition for seats. Historically, members of congress were subjected to weak party discipline and thought of themselves primarily as entrepreneurial figures charged with cutting deals with one another to advance their own interests. But we’ve shifted in recent years to a different paradigm in which discipline is tighter and lawmakers—especially on the Republican side—see themselves as footsoldiers in the battle for majority control. That becomes a game in which there’s very little incentive for anyone to compromise, so you don’t see a ton of compromising happening.

In the UK, parties never compromise on anything and the parliament operates by pure majority control. Except suddenly the most recent election created a large incentive for Tory-LibDem cooperation and lo and behold compromise turned out to be possible.