The Tradeoffs Perspective

American Government and Civic Engagement HIST 1301 THE TRADEOFFS PERSPECTIVE While elitists and pluralists portray the struggle for political power as a tug-of-war between individuals on opposing sides of a rope, in actuality, tradeoffs and compromises constantly shape public policy and government actions. For example, the elites in society could not support a course of action that will address the demands of a vast number of people. Plans to assist the impoverished may be hampered by giving the wealthy what they desire. Pluralists contend that group rivalry results in the creation of public policy. Ultimately, the interests of the people and the elite are likely to drive government policy, and compromises are frequently made in an effort to appease both. There have been compromises made between proponents of the federal government's hegemony and proponents of state governments' greater authority ever since the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Should the federal government have been entitled to urge state and municipal governments to enforce social distance and mask wear in 2020 because to the rapid spread of COVID-19? Or was the strategy that worked, where local and state governments controlled these actions, the best course of action? Should Americans' emails and phone calls be read and recorded by the people in charge of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)? Is it within the power of organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which defends the speech rights of every person, to stop this? The government has to make a lot of trade-offs with regard to speech freedom. The federal government is not allowed to impede Americans' ability to voice their thoughts on issues that are important to them, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. State governments are required by the Fourteenth Amendment to safeguard this freedom as well. However, neither the federal government nor state governments may permit one person's right to free speech to impede on the enjoyment of another person's rights. For instance, women are able to legally obtain abortions in the United States. Many individuals are against this right and frequently demonstrate in front of abortion providers. Massachusetts passed a regulation requiring demonstrators to remain 35 feet away from clinic entrances in 2007. The goal was to shield women seeking abortions from intimidation or violent threats. The bill was backed by organisations that favoured safeguarding women's reproductive rights. Organisations opposed to abortion said that the buffer zone made it impossible for them to approach women and try to talk them out of getting the operation. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the rule that established a buffer zone between demonstrators and clinic doors in the McCullen v. Coakley case in 2014. Nonetheless, the federal government does not always support individuals who are against abortion. Legislation mandating that women inform their spouses before having an abortion—and frequently get their consent—has been sought in a number of states. The courts have declared each of these statutes to be unconstitutional. Conflict between groups reflecting the divergent interests of citizens also results in tradeoffs. A large number of Americans think that the United States has to become less reliant on foreign energy sources. Many more want low-cost energy sources available to the public. These individuals are probably in favour of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which allows drilling firms to release natural gas that has been trapped underground in shale strata. Fracking generates cheap, plentiful natural gas, which is very advantageous for residents in areas of the nation where wintertime home heating is costly. Jobs are also produced by fracking. In addition, a number of academics contend that fracking raises the possibility of earthquakes, air pollution, and tainted drinking water. Fracking has even been connected to cancer in one research. Thus, there is tension between those who want to safeguard the environment and public health and others who want to give jobs and cheap natural gas. Despite their good intentions, neither side can agree on what is best for the general public. In particular, compromises are frequently made in the US Congress. Typically, senators and representatives in the House of Representatives cast their votes based on the issues that affect the citizens of their respective districts. This typically favours the interests of some groups of people over those of other individuals within the same state, in addition to pitting the interests of people in various sections of the country against one another. For instance, permitting oil companies to drill off the state's coast may appease those who need the jobs that will result, but it will enrage others who want to protect coastal areas as wildlife refuges and could jeopardise the interests of those who make their living from fishing and tourism in the event of an accident. Legislators and senators in the House of Representatives occasionally disregard the interests of their constituents and the organisations that advocate for them in favour of adhering to the policies of their political party's leaders. Representatives from political parties who oppose government spending on social programmes may request a vote against legislation that would raise benefits for retired individuals, even when a member of Congress from a state with a high percentage of the senior population may be inclined to support it. Conversely, this can also happen, particularly if a lawmaker is about to run for reelection. We are more likely to witness House representatives defying their party in support of their constituency since they have two-year terms of office. Lastly, the government may try to use tradeoffs to reconcile competing interests across the board for the country. Many people are worried about shielding themselves and their family from weapon violence in the wake of several mass shootings at malls, theatres, churches, concerts, and nightclubs. Some organisations want to outright prohibit the sale of specific kinds of firearms. Some only seek tighter regulations on who may acquire firearms or the amount of time that must pass between when a customer enters a store to make a purchase and when they are actually given the weapon. They do not support outright banning the ownership of firearms. Some people are against limiting the quantity or kind of firearms that Americans can possess. State governments have not tried to outright forbid gun sales; instead, they have tried to strike a compromise between the interests of these groups by imposing limitations on issues like who is allowed to sell weapons, where they may be sold, and background check procedures. For example, several states have passed legislation mandating background checks before selling firearms to individuals at gun shows, even though federal law does not compel private gun dealers—those who sell guns but do not make their primary revenue from doing so—to do so. Congress has overwhelmingly supported improving the background check procedure at the federal level. In fact, the FixNICS Act was enacted by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Trump in March 2018 as part of an omnibus budget measure, in defiance of the National Rifle Association's concerns.21 Additionally, two House-passed legislation are currently being considered by the U.S. Senate in response to the mass shootings that occurred in Boulder and Atlanta.