Are Backroom Deals Necessary for a Productive Democracy?
Karam Katariya
When many individuals tend to think of democracy, they picture an ideological and altruistic government which strives only to make the lives of the mass population better. They think that Democrats and Republicans are all about their ideologies, be it abortion or gun laws. These ideologist fail to realize that politicians are selfish, and their goal is usually not to help the people, but to help themselves keep or gain power. Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institute’s author of “Political Realism”compares the ideologists of today with the people two generations ago, who didn’t demand to know everything the government was doing, and realized that slimey politics were taking place, but were okay with it. On the other hand, today, backroom deals in the government, or transactional politics, are condemned by so many as corrupt, because they lead to individuals not part of the government not being told everything that takes place. However, transactional politics should be promoted in our government because they are efficient and almost necessary in society, result in less polarization, keep citizens happier, would occur whether condemned or not, and can still keep democracy alive. They can be incorporated into our ideologically charged society today by increasing moderate voter participation in society.
Transactional politics make government dealings supremely more efficient and are almost necessary for its success. By nature, transactional politics are conducted by who Rauch refers to as “professional politicians”, those who aren’t attached to ideology and are willing to compromise to get ahead. When government officials scratch each other’s backs, they tend to do business together regardless of their political beliefs. A professional Republican, for example, is much more likely to conduct business with a professional Democrat than are “amateurs”, or those fixated with ideology, with their counterparts in opposing parties. When transactional politics occur, there is always a reward involved, and because of such an incentive, politicians are able to detach from what they stand for for to get the job done. The rewards could vary, being, “power, status, sociability, the fun of the game, and tangible benefits, including pecuniary ones” (Rauch 4). With backroom deals, everyone tends to be on the same page, meaning everyone is working toward the same goal, leading to work being completed much more efficiently than it would without transactional politics, where members of opposing parties would see no benefit in aiding their counterparts pass a bill or work toward a certain legislation, because not only would it not be in line with their ideologies, it wouldn’t benefit them, leading these government officials only attempt and stall the ones on the other side of the political spectrum. Without some semblance of backroom deals, politics of opposing parties would never agree on anything, leading very little to be accomplished in the government.
Transactional politics also result in less polarization. Because transactional politics requires leaders to work together, government officials, because they would have to shed their ideology for the purpose of business, would, according to Rauch, “dial their ideologies back” (Rauch 11), so that they can hold power, leading to more agreement within the government and a sort of happy medium to form. This more moderate action, by not being extremely liberal or conservative, gives both sides more of what they desire in government. Rauch defies an accepted belief by many that moderation comes from moderates. He, rather, believes that as a result of transactional politics, moderation comes from those who may have strong beliefs but are required to compromise as a result of backroom deals. With more moderate politics governing this country, it is likely that more individuals from both sides of the political spectrum would be in consensus, leading to less conflict between active political outsiders as a whole.
Transactional politics have also shown to keep citizens more content with the government. PEW Research data has shown that the average citizen, both conservative and liberal, was more content with the government in the 1960s than today. In the 1960’s government satisfaction was at 74 percent compared to 2014’s 24 percent. Weren’t the 1960s when political machines and transactional politics were considered the norm? According to Rauch, the politics in our grandparents’ generation “did a pretty good job of governing the country, despite living in a world of bosses and backrooms and unlimited donations, and many of them understood some home truths which today’s political reformers have too often overlooked or suppressed” (Rauch 1). Rauch indicates that despite that backroom deals was the norm, and everyone knew it, the government then did a successful job without some of the barriers, like ideological extremism, polarization, and donation caps that are seen today. He discusses that the American citizens two generations ago understood that politics was a sketchy business and accepted that, because back scratching needed to take place in order for the job to get done. They were happy, for the most part, with their transactional government.
Transactional politics, whether citizens like it or not, is inevitable. Rauch discusses that even though populists, progressives, and libertarians all seem to condemn backroom deals in some form or the other, they would persist under all their administrations. According to Rauch, progressives say that they dislike such “corruption” because it deviates from mediocrity and favors those who are wealthy and power, and see government as “perfectible and as a path toward a higher public good” (Rauch 15). Populists, like progressives think that corruption and backroom deals take power away from the average American, and instead seem to encourage more public participation in governmental affairs. Libertarians, on the other hand, see corruption in welfare. All these politicians, on the surface, seem to despise transactional politics, but judging by their own reasons for hating it, it seems inevitable. Welfare probably won’t be going away anytime soon, and neither will donations to politicians that provide wealthy patrons with some power. Even though there are now maximum donations in place, donors just funnel their money through what Rauch refers to as “shadow political machines”, where they still get their money over to politicians and thus assume some control over their actions. But, instead of the money coming in through clean, legal routes, it takes a convoluted path to reach politicians. Additionally, as Senator John McCain says, “We are all corrupted… the system is corrupted” (Rauch 15). If the system is corrupted, it’s pretty clear that the so called corruption of backroom deals will happen with or without popular endorsement.
Backroom deals in government also don’t harm democracy, and keep its ideals alive. Democracy, by definition, is a system of government in which people vote in fair and frequent elections that result in a deliberate rule of law. At this point, it’s important to distinguish transactional politics and political machines. While Rauch argues for the elimination of political primaries in order to distinguish the amateurs from the professionals, transactional politics doesn’t necessarily require that. While they do favor political professionals over amateurs, transactional politics wouldn’t have to eliminate political primaries in order to survive. They would still be representative of the people; the elected government officials wouldn’t change. The laws made, besides possibly becoming more unanimous, would continue to be in the best interest of the people. Governmental officials could still be impeached when they fail to accomplish what the people desire. Elections would still be conducted in a fair and frequent manner, and no amount of back-scratching politics within the government would ever be able to stop voting from occurring.
Without a doubt, it would be hard to get the ideologically charged people of today’s society to accept and embrace transactional politics. But, it could be possible by increasing the participation of the moderate voter population, like Rauch discusses through the elimination or at least decrease of media propaganda. When candidates create television commercials advertising their greatness along with the horrors their opponents would bring, they not only polarize individuals, they alienate them. For example, last year, Tucson’s local congressional elections between Republican Martha McSally and Democrat Ron Barber took place. Whenever someone in Tucson wanted to turn on the television in order to decompress after a long day at work, they would see countless commercials promoting these candidates’ campaigns. Martha McSally’s advertisements would discuss how evil and manipulative Ron Barber was, while Ron Barber’s advertisements would do the same to his opponent. What effect would this have had on Tucsonans? It probably polarized many of them who didn’t know better. However, it also would have caused many of them to get annoyed with the pettiness these candidates were engaging in with their ideologies and behaviors, and would have thus led them to turn off the TV, because it would have failed to provide them with the relaxation they were hoping to gain by watching television, and led them to stay away from all this political drama and stress that they probably didn’t desire in their lives. If these advertisements were discouraged by politicians and candidates alike, more moderate voters would again enter the political world and participate in voting. More moderate voters who don’t necessarily support the most ideologically charged candidates, will prefer negotiated, more moderate laws in the government rather than extremist ones, and will thus support the transactional politics resulting in these laws.
Backroom deals in politics are essential. They are effective, efficient, productive, allow people to work together and be more content with a more unanimous and moderate result, keep democracy’s principles alive, and in general, keep people happier, even if they believe that they condemn it. It is a common misconception that corruption and transactional politics are one in the same. Corruption is solely based on self interest, while transactional politics still serves to help the people, which is why it should be embraced.
Karam Katariya
When many individuals tend to think of democracy, they picture an ideological and altruistic government which strives only to make the lives of the mass population better. They think that Democrats and Republicans are all about their ideologies, be it abortion or gun laws. These ideologist fail to realize that politicians are selfish, and their goal is usually not to help the people, but to help themselves keep or gain power. Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institute’s author of “Political Realism”compares the ideologists of today with the people two generations ago, who didn’t demand to know everything the government was doing, and realized that slimey politics were taking place, but were okay with it. On the other hand, today, backroom deals in the government, or transactional politics, are condemned by so many as corrupt, because they lead to individuals not part of the government not being told everything that takes place. However, transactional politics should be promoted in our government because they are efficient and almost necessary in society, result in less polarization, keep citizens happier, would occur whether condemned or not, and can still keep democracy alive. They can be incorporated into our ideologically charged society today by increasing moderate voter participation in society.
Transactional politics make government dealings supremely more efficient and are almost necessary for its success. By nature, transactional politics are conducted by who Rauch refers to as “professional politicians”, those who aren’t attached to ideology and are willing to compromise to get ahead. When government officials scratch each other’s backs, they tend to do business together regardless of their political beliefs. A professional Republican, for example, is much more likely to conduct business with a professional Democrat than are “amateurs”, or those fixated with ideology, with their counterparts in opposing parties. When transactional politics occur, there is always a reward involved, and because of such an incentive, politicians are able to detach from what they stand for for to get the job done. The rewards could vary, being, “power, status, sociability, the fun of the game, and tangible benefits, including pecuniary ones” (Rauch 4). With backroom deals, everyone tends to be on the same page, meaning everyone is working toward the same goal, leading to work being completed much more efficiently than it would without transactional politics, where members of opposing parties would see no benefit in aiding their counterparts pass a bill or work toward a certain legislation, because not only would it not be in line with their ideologies, it wouldn’t benefit them, leading these government officials only attempt and stall the ones on the other side of the political spectrum. Without some semblance of backroom deals, politics of opposing parties would never agree on anything, leading very little to be accomplished in the government.
Transactional politics also result in less polarization. Because transactional politics requires leaders to work together, government officials, because they would have to shed their ideology for the purpose of business, would, according to Rauch, “dial their ideologies back” (Rauch 11), so that they can hold power, leading to more agreement within the government and a sort of happy medium to form. This more moderate action, by not being extremely liberal or conservative, gives both sides more of what they desire in government. Rauch defies an accepted belief by many that moderation comes from moderates. He, rather, believes that as a result of transactional politics, moderation comes from those who may have strong beliefs but are required to compromise as a result of backroom deals. With more moderate politics governing this country, it is likely that more individuals from both sides of the political spectrum would be in consensus, leading to less conflict between active political outsiders as a whole.
Transactional politics have also shown to keep citizens more content with the government. PEW Research data has shown that the average citizen, both conservative and liberal, was more content with the government in the 1960s than today. In the 1960’s government satisfaction was at 74 percent compared to 2014’s 24 percent. Weren’t the 1960s when political machines and transactional politics were considered the norm? According to Rauch, the politics in our grandparents’ generation “did a pretty good job of governing the country, despite living in a world of bosses and backrooms and unlimited donations, and many of them understood some home truths which today’s political reformers have too often overlooked or suppressed” (Rauch 1). Rauch indicates that despite that backroom deals was the norm, and everyone knew it, the government then did a successful job without some of the barriers, like ideological extremism, polarization, and donation caps that are seen today. He discusses that the American citizens two generations ago understood that politics was a sketchy business and accepted that, because back scratching needed to take place in order for the job to get done. They were happy, for the most part, with their transactional government.
Transactional politics, whether citizens like it or not, is inevitable. Rauch discusses that even though populists, progressives, and libertarians all seem to condemn backroom deals in some form or the other, they would persist under all their administrations. According to Rauch, progressives say that they dislike such “corruption” because it deviates from mediocrity and favors those who are wealthy and power, and see government as “perfectible and as a path toward a higher public good” (Rauch 15). Populists, like progressives think that corruption and backroom deals take power away from the average American, and instead seem to encourage more public participation in governmental affairs. Libertarians, on the other hand, see corruption in welfare. All these politicians, on the surface, seem to despise transactional politics, but judging by their own reasons for hating it, it seems inevitable. Welfare probably won’t be going away anytime soon, and neither will donations to politicians that provide wealthy patrons with some power. Even though there are now maximum donations in place, donors just funnel their money through what Rauch refers to as “shadow political machines”, where they still get their money over to politicians and thus assume some control over their actions. But, instead of the money coming in through clean, legal routes, it takes a convoluted path to reach politicians. Additionally, as Senator John McCain says, “We are all corrupted… the system is corrupted” (Rauch 15). If the system is corrupted, it’s pretty clear that the so called corruption of backroom deals will happen with or without popular endorsement.
Backroom deals in government also don’t harm democracy, and keep its ideals alive. Democracy, by definition, is a system of government in which people vote in fair and frequent elections that result in a deliberate rule of law. At this point, it’s important to distinguish transactional politics and political machines. While Rauch argues for the elimination of political primaries in order to distinguish the amateurs from the professionals, transactional politics doesn’t necessarily require that. While they do favor political professionals over amateurs, transactional politics wouldn’t have to eliminate political primaries in order to survive. They would still be representative of the people; the elected government officials wouldn’t change. The laws made, besides possibly becoming more unanimous, would continue to be in the best interest of the people. Governmental officials could still be impeached when they fail to accomplish what the people desire. Elections would still be conducted in a fair and frequent manner, and no amount of back-scratching politics within the government would ever be able to stop voting from occurring.
Without a doubt, it would be hard to get the ideologically charged people of today’s society to accept and embrace transactional politics. But, it could be possible by increasing the participation of the moderate voter population, like Rauch discusses through the elimination or at least decrease of media propaganda. When candidates create television commercials advertising their greatness along with the horrors their opponents would bring, they not only polarize individuals, they alienate them. For example, last year, Tucson’s local congressional elections between Republican Martha McSally and Democrat Ron Barber took place. Whenever someone in Tucson wanted to turn on the television in order to decompress after a long day at work, they would see countless commercials promoting these candidates’ campaigns. Martha McSally’s advertisements would discuss how evil and manipulative Ron Barber was, while Ron Barber’s advertisements would do the same to his opponent. What effect would this have had on Tucsonans? It probably polarized many of them who didn’t know better. However, it also would have caused many of them to get annoyed with the pettiness these candidates were engaging in with their ideologies and behaviors, and would have thus led them to turn off the TV, because it would have failed to provide them with the relaxation they were hoping to gain by watching television, and led them to stay away from all this political drama and stress that they probably didn’t desire in their lives. If these advertisements were discouraged by politicians and candidates alike, more moderate voters would again enter the political world and participate in voting. More moderate voters who don’t necessarily support the most ideologically charged candidates, will prefer negotiated, more moderate laws in the government rather than extremist ones, and will thus support the transactional politics resulting in these laws.
Backroom deals in politics are essential. They are effective, efficient, productive, allow people to work together and be more content with a more unanimous and moderate result, keep democracy’s principles alive, and in general, keep people happier, even if they believe that they condemn it. It is a common misconception that corruption and transactional politics are one in the same. Corruption is solely based on self interest, while transactional politics still serves to help the people, which is why it should be embraced.