![]() Some outlets described the shutdown in terms of “ expansive and explosive” ideological differences. Indeed, we see these varying frames for gridlock in media coverage of the 2013 government shutdown. ![]() This suggests an important role for the media in shaping how the public reacts to legislative gridlock. We also find that, on energy policy, gridlock that is framed as resulting from ideological disagreement is viewed more positively than gridlock that is framed as resulting from partisan fighting and strategic efforts to highlight disagreement. When policy alternatives are clearly linked to a particular party, people still express a preference for Congress to “ do something,” even if the policy is the favored position of the opposing party. Our results demonstrate that while partisan considerations are clearly important in how people evaluate public policies, these considerations do not always trump the desire for Congress to take action on important issues. Both outcomes are worse than either a compromise or a win by one’s own party. On this non-consensus issue, gridlock is viewed very similarly to a win by the opposing party. This same striking pattern does not appear in the case of gun ownership policy (study 2). 90% confidence intervals surround each mean level of approval. Note: Y-axis measures mean approval of how Congress is handling each policy on a 0-1 scale. This striking finding suggests a strong preference for legislative action on consensus issues-even if that action is consistent with the preferences of the opposing party.įigure 1 – Party conflict and public support for legislative outcomes Put differently, self-identified Democrats favor Republican victories and self-identified Republicans favor Democratic victories over inaction on energy policy. Most interesting, however, is that gridlock reduces approval by 15 percentage points relative to a win for the opposing party. When the opposing party wins, approval drops by 23 percentage points relative to one’s own party winning and by 13 percentage points relative to compromise. In each study we then asked participants, “Do you approve or disapprove of how Congress is handling ?”Īs Figure 1 shows, on the consensus issue of energy policy (study 1), a win for one’s own party is preferred by 10 percentage points to a compromise outcome. In the second study, we focused on gun ownership policy, where parties disagree over both the means and ends of policy (i.e., the parties disagree over whether gun ownership should be expanded or curtailed). In the first study, we focused on energy policy, a consensus issue on which the parties disagree over the means of addressing the problem but agree over the end goals (i.e., lowering costs and reducing dependency on foreign oil). We also included conditions where inaction was framed as resulting from ideological disagreement, and where inaction was framed as resulting from partisan fighting. Our research relied on two survey experiments conducted in 2014, in which we manipulated whether party conflict resulted in a policy compromise, a legislative victory for Democrats, a legislative victory for Republicans, or inaction. Perhaps more surprisingly, on issues where the parties disagree on the means of changing policies but agree on the end goals (i.e., consensus issues), partisans view gridlock as even worse than a victory by the opposing party. How does the outcome of partisan conflict-in particular whether conflict results in gridlock-affect how people evaluate Congress? Our new research shows that gridlock hurts evaluations relative to compromise and to legislative victories by one’s favored party. The inattention to gridlock-or instances in which the parties are unable to resolve differences and reach agreement, resulting in inaction on an issue-is especially surprising given growing concerns about partisan conflict and legislative productivity. Yet, research on party conflict often overlooks the outcome of conflict, or focuses on instances in which conflict results in partisan victories. ![]() Ever.” Scholars are increasingly interested in how this partisan conflict influences how the public evaluates Congress, as well as whether the public prefers bipartisan compromise to continued conflict. Gridlock in Congress is on the rise and, as a result, recent Congresses have been termed the “ Worst. They find that on issues where the parties agree over end goals, gridlock hurts evaluations of Congress even more than legislative victories for the opposing party. Flynn and Laurel Harbridge investigate how party conflict- resulting in compromise, victories for one party, or gridlock-shapes public opinion towards Congress. Party conflict, gridlock, and dysfunction are common words for describing the US Congress in recent years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |