Compromise in an Age of Party Polarization

Abstract

Abstract Congressional debates are increasingly defined by gridlock and stalemate, with partisan showdowns that lead to government shutdowns. Compromise in Congress seems hard to reach. But do politicians deserve all the blame? Legislators who resist concessions and stand firm to their convictions might be doing just what voters want them to do. If this is true, however, then citizens must shoulder some of the responsibility for gridlock in Congress. This book challenges this wisdom and argues that Americans value compromise as a way to resolve differences in times of partisan division. Using evidence from a variety of surveys and innovative experiments, the book demonstrates that citizens want more from politics than just ideological representation—they also care about the processes by which disagreements are settled. Americans believe that compromise is a virtuous way to resolve political disputes. Because people’s desire for compromise is deeply rooted in socialized support for democratic values, principled beliefs about compromise can serve as a check on partisan thinking. Across a range of settings, people’s support for compromise persists even when it comes at the cost of partisan goals and policy objectives. People give warmer evaluations to members of Congress who are willing to compromise and view compromise legislation as more legitimate. People care about not just outcomes, but also the way decisions are reached. Winning isn’t everything in politics. People also value the democratic principle of compromise.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 117 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.