Stalemate Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock Book Report
Written by Sarah Binder
Review by
Abstract
This written report is appertaining to the book Stalemate Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock,written by Sarah A. Binder. This book is published by Brookings Institution Press in Washington D.C., it was copyrighted in 2003 by Sarah A. Binder.
Introduction of the Author
Stalemate causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock was written by Sarah A. Binder. Sarah A. Binder is a senior fellow in Governance Studies, Sarah has reviewed more than fifty years in congressional legislative history. Sarah has successfully compared the regularity of Congressional deadlock, which offers special intuition into Congress’s performance.
Summary
Sarah A Binder begins with this quote “Gridlock is not a modern legislative condition…” Pg. 1, in the first sentence. Sarah A. Binder states that one of the founding fathers Alexander Hamilton two hundred years ago complained about stalemate. Sarah A. Binder states that many scholars have questioned the “framers intent” on if the founding fathers really wanted gridlock in congress. This is an important question which Sarah answers, she states that James Madison helped form a government of limited powers which favors stalemate. Most Americans today would consider this screwball because nothing seems to get done in congress with political parties drifting away from the center to the extreme. We can see the evidence in many national polls which Americans have voiced their distaste about congress. However, many Americans fail to realize that the founding fathers had, “fears about tyranny and thereby sought protection through competing legitimacies”, Pg. 5. Sarah A. Binderdescribes a true phenomenon the unintended consequences of constitutional design, the author describes this by, “A mismatch between the design of an institution and the effects of that institution can occur for two reasons” p.13. The first reason of this phenomena is that politicians can’t always get what they want. The second reason is mismatches occur between institutions in the government, even in some cases the institutions created by congress showed little effect. Sarah A. Binder describes congressional gridlock as a system of separated institutions that share constitutional powers which has heightened the chance of stopping legislation that abuses constitutional powers, but on the other hand hinders the chance of legislation passing. Sarah A. Binder talks about a “New” Bicameralism how the Senate was created by the founders for checking the House of Representatives instead the Senate has evolved into legislating body like the House of Representatives. Sarah A. Binder then brings an important point about the consequences of political parties. Sarah describes this as diabolical in that when party politics came into place a, “bridging the separation of powers was created” p.20. Members of Congress, Senate or The White house now would share policy interests this furthered gridlock. This furthered gridlock in times of polarization causing political leaders in the both parties to move ideologically to the opposite side of the spectrum. Latter in this chapter Sarah talks about how elections effect institutions who tap into ideological views. In the next chapter Sarah speaks about the frequency of stalemate, Sarah starts off by using the example of the 1965-66 Congress under President Lyndon B. Johnson that passed policies like, “health care, environment, civil rights, transportation, and education statutes” p.34, the congress of 1965-66 would move on to pass a total of twenty two extensive laws. Sarah then moves on to measure frequency of stalemate by the underlying policy, for example a Congress that is gridlock isn’t successful at passing legislation in comparison to a Congress with limited legislation to pass.
The twenty-seven Congresses that assembled 1947-2000 only agreed on policy on an average of thirteen laws during periods when the same party controlled both houses and eleven times during times of uneven control. Sarah also points out that domestic policy is more likely to end in stalemate than foreign policies. As we dive deeper into the text Sarah mentions that during an election year legislators are more likely seeking an issue rather and working towards a bill, and maintaining their support for the base of their political party.
In the next chapter Sarah A. Binder evaluates what drives legislative action Sarah begins with stating that, “Perhaps a crisis is necessary for generating the compromise necessary to drive legislative success”p.85. Sarah A. Binder states that most legislative policies are driven by electoral dynamics. She also mentions that partisan polarization does not lead to much production, instead it is better for the parties to be more moderate which leads to a higher chance of legislative success. Also of important mention is the fact that Presidential support affects legislation also, the fact is if the President requests that congress act the congressional opposition might decide to concede allowing the legislation’s passage.
In the last chapter Sarah A. Binder talks about the consequences of stalemate, many cases of stalemates consequences have been undiscovered. Sarah makes a very large point in this chapter is that incumbents will eventually develop resistance to being removed from office by another candidate even from high account of congressional stalemate. Today party polarization has increased with representatives leaning to the far right and left resulting in a far higher case of stalemate within the government.
Analysis
I start with stating that Stalemate causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock is a fantastic book to read, Sarah A. Binder used facts and logic to construct a smooth reader experience.
Sarah A. Binder wrote Stalemate causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock in a non-partisan fashion, even though most people would be lead to believe that the book has a political leaning. I believe that the author of the book keep her commitment to constructing a non-partisan look into stalemate. Sarah A. Binder inaugurates the idea that, “Gridlock is not a modern legislative condition…” Pg. 1, in the first sentence. Sarah’s statement is unarguable gridlock has always affect congress since the early eighteen hundreds. People today might think that gridlock only exists today because the many conflicts between congress and President Obama an example would be the government shutdown. However gridlock existed during President Bush’s presidency that is the main reason he broke his promise not to raise taxes and decided to agree with congressional Democrats to raise taxes. Another example would be most of President Clinton’s presidency gridlock with congressional republicans, President Clinton was unable to pass his healthcare reform act through congress. The theme of the book invokes the emotion that gridlock is good, I support this side of the argument. Most politicians and citizens of the US would say that gridlock is bad for our government, but my statement differs. Gridlock protects our institutions and our government from passing laws that undermine the constitution of the United States. As political parties continue on the path of polarization and write legislation that favor’s the far right or left agendas these bills will most likely fail to pass in congress or the senate. Thus gridlock to a two party system saves us from ridiculous legislation that evolves from polarization, gridlock can be seen as a cushion for our democracy.
Bibliography
Binder, S. (2003). Stalemate causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
