A poll released earlier this month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans want members of Congress to work across party lines, yet most of those same people doubt it will happen. The Dallas Morning News editorial board, writing in late December 2022, takes that gap as its subject, asking why a widely shared wish for cooperation keeps dissolving before it reaches Washington. Its answer lies less in the public's temperament than in the machinery of elections, where gerrymandering, social media and money tend to reward those who refuse to bend.
Most Americans Want Compromise in Congress. Why Won't It Happen?
It's one thing to be fed up. It's another to take steps toward reform.
Mark
So what's the core finding here?
Mimi
Nearly three-quarters of Americans want Congress members to compromise across party lines, but 58% don't believe it will happen.
Mark
Why does the editorial think it doesn't happen?
Mimi
It points to gerrymandering, algorithm-driven social media, and dark money backing extremist candidates who see no value in compromise.
Luke
Worth noting this is an editorial, not a news analysis. The poll numbers are solid attribution, but the causes are the board's argument.
Mark
Fair. What about the claim that people see compromise on abortion and immigration?
Mimi
That comes from the board's own series, The American Middle, launched in September. It says people find common ground even there.
Luke
And we don't get the data from that series in this piece. So it's an assertion we can't check here.
Mark
What's the practical ask?
Mimi
Vote in primaries, where the editorial says the worst candidates win most often, and push for reforms on gerrymandering, social media and campaign money.
Luke
Again, that primary claim is stated without numbers. It's plausible as an argument, but unproven in the text.
Der Puls
- Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they want Congress to compromise, while 58% say they expect no such thing to happen.
- Voters are worn down by bickering and performative outrage that plays well on cable news and social media but accomplishes little.
- The editorial board blames gerrymandering, algorithm-driven hostility and dark money for rewarding extremists and punishing compromise.
- Its proposed remedy is sustained pressure on redistricting, social media and campaign finance, with the next primary season as the most immediate test.
A poll released earlier this month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans want members of Congress to work across party lines, yet most of those same people doubt it will happen. The Dallas Morning News editorial board, writing in late December 2022, takes that gap as its subject, asking why a widely shared wish for cooperation keeps dissolving before it reaches Washington. Its answer lies less in the public's temperament than in the machinery of elections, where gerrymandering, social media and money tend to reward those who refuse to bend.
Earlier this month, NPR, PBS NewsHour and the Marist Institute for Public Opinion released a poll that gave numbers to a feeling many Americans already voice. Nearly three-quarters want members of Congress to compromise across party lines, but 58% have no confidence it will happen. The Dallas Morning News editorial board takes that gap as its starting point.
NPR's Domenico Montanaro, reporting on the poll, described a public tired of bickering, name-calling and manufactured outrage. The board agrees that much of modern politics has become a performance staged for social media and cable news. The spectacle is grating, yet it pays off in retweets, primary votes and fundraising appeals. The board's own series, The American Middle, found that people see room for compromise even on abortion and immigration, but those areas of agreement rarely survive the journey into governance.
The reason, the editorial argues, is structural. Extreme partisan gerrymandering and algorithm-driven hostility stack the deck, and extremist candidates backed by special interests and dark money see little value in compromise. The board distinguishes true believers from those who have turned their causes into a grift, since keeping a problem alive keeps donors engaged.
Its remedy is sustained attention from people who are fed up: pushing back on gerrymandering, demanding social media reform and scrutinizing money in politics. It also names a faster route, voting in the next primary, since that is where the worst candidates are winning most often. The piece closes by separating sentiment from action. Being frustrated is not enough, and the coming primary season will show whether the poll's three-quarters turn into votes.
Earlier this month, NPR, PBS NewsHour and the Marist Institute for Public Opinion released a poll that put a number on something many Americans say out loud. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they want members of Congress to compromise with members of the opposing party. Yet 58% said they have no confidence that it will happen.
That gap is the subject of a Dallas Morning News editorial published December 23, 2022. The paper's editorial board takes the poll as its starting point and asks why a majority preference keeps failing to produce a result in Washington.
The poll's findings were reported by NPR's Domenico Montanaro, who wrote that many Americans are simply tired of the bickering, name-calling and faux outrage that have become common among members on both sides of the aisle. The editorial board does not dispute that picture. It describes much of modern politics as performance art staged for social media and cable news, a grating spectacle that nonetheless pays off in retweets, in primary votes and in fundraising appeals.
The board writes from some history on the question. In September it launched a series called The American Middle, meant to examine how Americans actually think about complicated issues. Its conclusion, drawn from that work, is that people see room for compromise even on the most divisive subjects, including abortion and immigration. Those areas of agreement, the editorial argues, rarely survive the trip into governance.
The reason, in the board's account, is structural. It points to a system increasingly resistant to reason and moderation, one in which extreme partisan gerrymandering and algorithm-driven social media hostility stack the deck against better outcomes. Extremist candidates, and the special interest groups that back them, often with large amounts of dark money, see little value in compromise. The editorial distinguishes between two kinds of actors: true believers who want to defeat anyone who does not agree with them entirely, and others who have turned their pet causes into a grift, since the money lies in keeping the problem prominent for devoted donors.
The remedy the board proposes is sustained attention from the people who are fed up. That means pushing back against gerrymandering, insisting on social media reform and examining the rules governing money in politics. The editorial treats these as long projects, but it names one faster route: that everyone frustrated with the current state of affairs vote in their next primary. Primaries, it says, are where the worst candidates are winning most often.
The piece closes with a distinction between sentiment and action. Being fed up, the board writes, is one thing; taking steps toward reform is another. For the American middle to take back the country, it argues, action is required. The next test is the coming primary season, where turnout will show whether the poll's three-quarters translate into votes.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Many Americans say they are simply tired of the bickering, name-calling and faux outrage that have become all-too-common among members on either side of the aisle in Congress.— Domenico Montanaro, NPR
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei The Dallas Morning News ↗
Politics & Governance