Pros And Cons Of Bargaining In Congress

Bargaining has been a common occurrence in human behavior for millennia. The first systems of trade and currency relied on barter systems. Bargaining has especially been prevalent in modern Congress in the United States. Recently though, the power of bartering has faced significant obstacles. The power of “going public” has been increasing due to intense partisanship in both Congress and the American people as a whole. If this trend continues, bargaining in Congress may be a relic of the past.
For years, Congress and the president have relied on a quid pro quo relationship to pass legislative initiatives. It was based on a system called bargaining. Since the power in government was spread out across different networks of people, no one ideological position held too much power. In order to pass legislation, everyone had to meet in the middle to some extent. One prominent example of bargaining is with Obama’s concessions in his landmark Affordable Care Act bill. In his presidential campaign, Obama campaigned against the individual mandate, one of the core aspects of his signature piece of legislation (Kirk, Gilmore, and Wiser 2010). This ran into heavy opposition by insurance …show more content…
The main pro to going public is that it is the classic form of democracy. The president rules by the will of the people. If the people will it, then it will be so. The problem with going public and abandoning bargaining is that it abandons the very essence of the Constitution. The Constitution was built on compromises. Nearly every aspect of the Constitution was heavily debated all the way down to the precise wording, especially in the first amendment. Each side made concessions to the other in the hopes of building a functioning government. Even Congress itself is a result of the Great Compromise. By abandoning the spirit of debate and bargaining, the country will abandon the spirit of the Constitution and what made it so