After reading “Political realism: How hacks, machines, big money, and back-room deals can strengthen American democracy” I can’t help but lean towards the idea of reinstating transactional politics. However, I admit that I was not initially a) educated on this subject and b) in support of transactional politics. It seems as though Jonathan Rauch had people like me in mind though, for he does a tremendous job of presenting his case in a strong, compelling manner, and thoroughly explores the history behind/leading up to the problems we as a country are experiencing that would require political machines to need to be reborn.
The essay presents us with an easily identifiable problem in today’s politics- that is, the lack of governing that is occurring, and then offers us with evidence as to why the country should alter its views to be more in-line with political realism. Rauch defines political realism as a “school of thought” that “...sees governing as difficult and political peace and stability as treasures never to be taken for granted” (7). He goes on to add that “...incrementalism and, especially, equilibrium—and, therefore, transactional politics…” are valued greatly (7). He expresses political realism to be incredibly important in that it “...offers new directions for a reform conversation which has run aground on outdated and unrealistic assumptions” (2).
I agree with Rauch’s belief that reform in necessary. Our country has become so deeply rooted in issues and the importance/weight of personal opinion in regard to those issues that politics has seemingly become a constant war between idealogues, and that compromising with the opposing side is equivalent to committing heresy. Alright alright, so perhaps i’m being a bit dramatic here. Nonetheless, I am not alone in this belief. It is stated in the essay that people consider politics to be “...more contentious, more ideological, and less productive than in the past…” and that “approval of government was higher, not lower, in the days when transactional politics was healthier, partly because government was seen as more competent” (14).
Action is necessary if we wish to see any change in our current government, and the lack of action in government today is good enough reason to change something. It is argued that “...what began as a useful correction of Tammany-style excess has become a neurotic obsession” of these ideologies and that their excessive insistence in anti-corruption makes practically everything become “nonnegotiable” (15). It’s at this point the argument for transactional politics becomes so reasonable. Thad Williamson, an Associate Professor of Leadership Studies and Philosophy, Politics, Economics and Law at the University of Richmond maintains that political machines “...can compromise—even when many of the people associated with them would rather not compromise” and that ultimately gets things done (11). I know, compromise seems like a foreign concept at this point, but according to these realists, machines “...are capable of brokering deals internally between many diverse constituents and interests…” without the need of “...internal consensus or even an internal majority to set a direction…” (10). Although this sounds impossible to us now, it is apparently possible with more closed-door negotiations for the politicians would have “...more freedom to explore policy options and multidimensional, integrative solutions” and “...work out complex packages in toto before individual pieces are shot down” (21).
Now comes the most important question: “how can it be done in such an ideologically charged political culture such as the one we live in?” This is arguably the hardest part for there is so much emotion against political machines. There are three clearly stated ideologies in the essay that directly oppose machines, our current government is full of politicians that are issue oriented, and modern media plays a significant role in making transactional politics look like the devil’s design. Perhaps the only true way to reinstate transactional politics is to change public opinion of them. Instead of media amplifying the views of the extremes and causing average Americans to polarize themselves, media should become more moderate. Then perhaps we can start to understand that there are trade-offs in life, and that if we want our government to function properly, we need to allow politicians to do what they were born to do, which includes “organizing their political environment, transacting exchanges with each other and their supporters, favoring friends over foes, building and joining informal hierarchies, controlling access to power and perquisites..” etc. (25). Ultimately we should aim to be like our grandparents, understanding “...that transactional politics—the everyday give-and-take of dickering and compromise—is the essential work of governing and that government, and thus democracy, won’t work if leaders can’t make deals and make them stick” (2).
The essay presents us with an easily identifiable problem in today’s politics- that is, the lack of governing that is occurring, and then offers us with evidence as to why the country should alter its views to be more in-line with political realism. Rauch defines political realism as a “school of thought” that “...sees governing as difficult and political peace and stability as treasures never to be taken for granted” (7). He goes on to add that “...incrementalism and, especially, equilibrium—and, therefore, transactional politics…” are valued greatly (7). He expresses political realism to be incredibly important in that it “...offers new directions for a reform conversation which has run aground on outdated and unrealistic assumptions” (2).
I agree with Rauch’s belief that reform in necessary. Our country has become so deeply rooted in issues and the importance/weight of personal opinion in regard to those issues that politics has seemingly become a constant war between idealogues, and that compromising with the opposing side is equivalent to committing heresy. Alright alright, so perhaps i’m being a bit dramatic here. Nonetheless, I am not alone in this belief. It is stated in the essay that people consider politics to be “...more contentious, more ideological, and less productive than in the past…” and that “approval of government was higher, not lower, in the days when transactional politics was healthier, partly because government was seen as more competent” (14).
Action is necessary if we wish to see any change in our current government, and the lack of action in government today is good enough reason to change something. It is argued that “...what began as a useful correction of Tammany-style excess has become a neurotic obsession” of these ideologies and that their excessive insistence in anti-corruption makes practically everything become “nonnegotiable” (15). It’s at this point the argument for transactional politics becomes so reasonable. Thad Williamson, an Associate Professor of Leadership Studies and Philosophy, Politics, Economics and Law at the University of Richmond maintains that political machines “...can compromise—even when many of the people associated with them would rather not compromise” and that ultimately gets things done (11). I know, compromise seems like a foreign concept at this point, but according to these realists, machines “...are capable of brokering deals internally between many diverse constituents and interests…” without the need of “...internal consensus or even an internal majority to set a direction…” (10). Although this sounds impossible to us now, it is apparently possible with more closed-door negotiations for the politicians would have “...more freedom to explore policy options and multidimensional, integrative solutions” and “...work out complex packages in toto before individual pieces are shot down” (21).
Now comes the most important question: “how can it be done in such an ideologically charged political culture such as the one we live in?” This is arguably the hardest part for there is so much emotion against political machines. There are three clearly stated ideologies in the essay that directly oppose machines, our current government is full of politicians that are issue oriented, and modern media plays a significant role in making transactional politics look like the devil’s design. Perhaps the only true way to reinstate transactional politics is to change public opinion of them. Instead of media amplifying the views of the extremes and causing average Americans to polarize themselves, media should become more moderate. Then perhaps we can start to understand that there are trade-offs in life, and that if we want our government to function properly, we need to allow politicians to do what they were born to do, which includes “organizing their political environment, transacting exchanges with each other and their supporters, favoring friends over foes, building and joining informal hierarchies, controlling access to power and perquisites..” etc. (25). Ultimately we should aim to be like our grandparents, understanding “...that transactional politics—the everyday give-and-take of dickering and compromise—is the essential work of governing and that government, and thus democracy, won’t work if leaders can’t make deals and make them stick” (2).