Bipartisanship, the Stimulus Bill, and Dealing with Bad-Faith Hill Republicans
Oversimplifying somewhat, there are two basic reasons for the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership to be open to accepting ideas/requests for changes from individual or groups of Congressional Republicans to a bill they are trying to move.
The first is that a Republican member might have a good idea, one that improves the bill substantively, from a policy standpoint.
The second is to draw Republican votes so as to be able to claim whatever enhanced legitimacy and public support may (or may not) come from having Republican votes.
Where the point of accepting a particular Republican request to alter the stimulus package was to try to win a Republican vote, but the White House thought it made the bill worse, then accepting the change was a "concession" that should not have been made in the first place. Now that the Republican bad-faith MO has been revealed, such "concessions" should not be made in similar situations in the future.
With Congressional Republicans who are now showing their MO to be as negative as the Republican minorities in Congress in 1993 were with Bill Clinton, then the way the White House should think about the benefit of being bipartisan is solely for the first reason above--to be open to ideas that would improve a bill and policy, and not to be able to say they had bipartisan support for something they did to try to obtain greater legitimacy.
If they think a particular Republican-offered idea improves the bill, they should take that suggestion. Just don't imagine it will draw any Republican votes--unless they secure a formal commitment that that member or the group asking for the change is "on" the bill--will vote for it--if the change is accepted.
Because if they take a Republican change that they didn't really think was a good idea, with the hope of getting some support from across the aisle, and then that member or group of members votes no on the bill anyway, where are they? They've made the bill and policy worse, with no benefit to show for that.
Peggy Noonan has said it better than I could
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123326587231330357.html
January 30, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You only have to listen to Nooner a little while to tell that she's clearly delusional. She was in the tank for Bush all through his disastrous presidency because "he has a pair"; what good was his "pair" when he clearly couldn't think his way out of an open paper sack. I'll take almost anybody's advice over Nooners, she's an idiot and nothing more than a Republican shill, nothing more, and nothing less.
January 30, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. Pence is quoted in the article as saying "...But know that there has been no negotiation [with Republicans] on the bill—we had absolutely no say." Is it your understanding that no suggestions from Republican members of the House were in the bill that was voted on?
From what I've read of your stuff at the site it sounds as though you and I probably have some pretty strong philosophical disagreements. In rough outline form, what is the package that, in your view, would have and should have attracted strong bipartisan support for being a good bill?
January 30, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there weren't any negotiations then I doubt that the Repubs suggestions were taken. I would be shocked if Dems just took the suggestions at face value without entering into any negotiations.
A good bill would have put more money into infrastructure and long-term jobs. Money for birth control, forest services and the national mall are all nice but I don't think they create long term jobs
January 30, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats need to start passing single-issue bills, so that the Republicans don't get any cover. Then the dems can meet them, head on, and take no prisoners. Because the Republicans are going to pull this shit, unless there's no cover for them, and then probably will still try it.
January 30, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of a reason to cooperate despite Congressional republicans doing whatever - rank and file republican voters who will decide whether or not to send these clowns back in the 2010 primaries.
While it is unlikely the democratic majority will simply sweep the republican party into the dustbin of history, liberals can help position the conversation in such a way as to make GOP incumbents very vulnerable in their primary elections.
Cognitive dissonance is Obama's best weapon to changing out our Congress Critters with some new blood. The more Americans' everyday lives are in conflict with the nonsense talking points coming out of Capital Hill, the quicker they will seek to change the script as well as the actors.
Obama was a change in script. We just have the same goofy thespians in the supporting roles.
January 30, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thought, Jason. I'm not sure that working in good faith with the Obama Administration and Dems, versus opposing outright, would help more Republicans seeking renomination by their party than it would hurt come the 2010 primary season. Much as personally I would like for that to be the case.
Just as among Democrats when Bush and the Republicans were in power, there usually seems to be more passion and energy among the folks who urge outright--and outspoken--opposition when their party is out of power, even if they don't necessarily represent majority sentiment on their side of the aisle.
But perhaps your read of the possibilities is a better one than mine. Could you sketch out such a possible scenario?
January 30, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only offer an 80% disapproval for Congress versus a 68% approval for our new president. Life has gotten so bad for so many people that I don't believe honest reflection can accommodate much more out-right obstructionism on the part of either party.
I think many previously partisan warriors (myself included) are learning the difference between pragmatic and principled opposition and stubborn, partisan obstruction. Obama's audience is whatever portion of that 68% approves of him and are republicans. Given the breakdown of the electorate, that isn't a small number of moderate conservatives.
I suspect that most normal people are in deep reflection on the previous level of expectation from "representatives" in Washington. Democratic reflection led to them nominating and electing a junior Senator from a medium-sized mid-western state. Republican reflections could be just as profound.
A paradigm shift is only obvious in hindsight.
January 30, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thoughts, as always, Jason.
It can often be difficult for ordinary voters to distinguish between when their elected representatives are operating in good faith and being contructive versus when they are posturing.
Granted that many elected officials are not going to want to appear obstructionist at this time, some may offer proposals they like but know will be rejected so as to be able to try to claim efforts at cooperation. When they claim they have been constructive, vigilant constituents will want to ask them in town meetings and other public forums what specific suggestions and proposals they offered, and what the response was, and then try to confirm whatever story they hear.
January 30, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I understand why you might see pure cussedness as leading to re-election as that has long been the way we conduct politics in this country.
I suspect that once again the American public, liberal and conservative, are far ahead of our "leaders" in Washington and that will be the story of the 2010 mid-terms. It's the anticipation of change that may hurt the democratic faithful a little as they will see very little actual change from "republicans" until it has already happened.
See my last sentence above.
January 30, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink