« Obama to the Muslim World, in the Mirror | Matthew Stavros's Blog | Big in Japan: Hillary's roll'n deep in Tokyo »
Who wants bipartisanship?
Who wants bipartisanship?
I may be stating the obvious but it's worth repeating that division is the lifeblood of party politics. Some seem shocked that the GOP doesn't want to cooperate with the president but why should they? One thing more important than doing what's best for the country is doing what's best for the party. And the only way the GOP stands any chance of getting back into the majority is by distinguishing themselves from the majority. They need to resist at all cost.
But what do you think?
I may be stating the obvious but it's worth repeating that division is the lifeblood of party politics. Some seem shocked that the GOP doesn't want to cooperate with the president but why should they? One thing more important than doing what's best for the country is doing what's best for the party. And the only way the GOP stands any chance of getting back into the majority is by distinguishing themselves from the majority. They need to resist at all cost.
But what do you think?
Advertisement
The best thing I read about that was last week. And I apologize that I can't recall the citation. But the gist is this:
Bipartisanship is a means, not an end. Those who make it into a "goal" in itself miss the point. I was convinced by that analysis. And I sure wish I could cite the source.
February 16, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not support the devil's right to exist and I refuse to support the repubs right to exist.
On the other hand, what is, is. And what is not, is not.
Prez has to look nice. He cannot send signals to the Dames of Maine or the dark Specter that he thinks all repubs stink.
Prez needs to look nice to media. Always good press and this guy knows how to smile and talk. Media is so excited to have someone who speaks in full sentences.
February 16, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dangerous right wing Republican Party understands the strategy and tactics of survival and politics much better than the cowardly Democrats of Washington, DC. Democrats consistently fall prey to their own naive rhetoric about a mythical time in which bipartisanship was the order of the day and both our national parties worked together for the good of the country.
This nostalgic fantasy holds Democrats back time and again from winning more seats in Congress and putting the Republicans in their well deserved place as a tiny, ineffective minority that is so small it has no choice but to cooperate. But the myth chasers of DC mistake putting the Republicans down and keeping them down as they were almost constantly between 1932 and 1978 as a state in which the sociopaths of that party were acting in a bipartisan manner. It's something akin to pointing out how cooperative and compliant prisoners are in most jails, most of the time. Do they have a choice? And when given a real choice do you think the criminals that populate that place would continue complying as they do when they know the harsh punishment meted out to them if they get out of line?
The Republicans attempted to destroy the country under Hoover and Democrats restored the economy and introduced the greatest prosperity and stability our country has ever known through a series of innovations and regulations using the power of government to advance our society. Check the record and see if you don't find that the right wing Republicans vehemently opposed every bit of progress, justice, and fairness the Democrats got passed whether it was minimum wage, the 40 hour week or social security, medicare, etc... Sure, a handful of Republicans from swing districts would go along with all these measures, but no right wing Republican ever did.
The key fact here that those seeking bipartisan Shangri La consistently ignore is that there are almost no Republicans left in Congress who are not extreme right wing Republicans. Thus, the only people surprised by the opposition of the Republicans to the stimulus bill and any and everything else the President supports are those who cling to this naive fantasy that these recalcitrant extremists will somehow experience a metamorphosis and become something they never were and never will be.
And finally, TheraP's mentions that bipartisansip is a means, not an end which is very true. Bipartisanship for it's own sake is not virtuous and assumes good faith and a lack of substantive difference between the two parties. While I certainly agree that far too often the members of Congress act like two wings of the same conservative party, the binge the Republicans went on in the past 25 years have heightened the differences and now made them critically important so that Democrats can no longer hide behind the skirts of their corporate benefactors but must indeed choose between the interests of the people they purportedly represent and the special interests of predatory wealth and power.
February 16, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, oleeb! well stated!
In the end, politics at its best is a contact sport. We definitely need two oppositional parties to make it work in our system. But I also agree with the reasonable qualifiers you outline, including Obama's need to be the consensus builder - at least until the GOP shows it definitely ain't interested in playing nice.
See Boehner, McCain, Graham, et. al., who supposedly represent the "moderate" Republicans. Then take a look at Cantor and the neo-Gingrich crew. It's like watching a slow-moving train wreck.
You are right that it is first required that the Dems get out from under the corporate ownership in which they have operated and finally begin acting like representatives of the majority of the electorate. Great opportunities here. Let's hope they don't blow it.
February 16, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Having the upper hand . . .
Howdy SJ . . .
The person or party who has the upper hand on an issue in a negotiation keenly imposes their wish on their rival, but to be fair in their dealing they must invite participation by their rival, but allow their rival to impose only that which is of necessity to the success of the issue(s) originally presented.
Other than that: Fish or cut bait.
~OGD~
February 17, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. OK that settles it, fuck 'em now and for good!
February 16, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful reply. Thanks, oleeb.
February 17, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for bipartisanship but there do not exist two equally compelling ideological sides; there is one that is pretty compelling and one that is merely opposing.
February 16, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wants bi-partisanship. Or at least that's what he wrote about in "Audacity of Hope". I actually believe he meant what he wrote.
February 16, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he meant it. I just don't know how to simply and accurately define the ideological foundation of the two different sides Obama would like to bring together.
If one side is only oppositional in nature, what defines meeting in the middle?
February 16, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that one side is only oppositional in nature? We are talking about a huge amount of money and this shouldn't be rushed.
February 16, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure my comments are as clear as they could be.
Here's what I'm for; an honest debate rife with original thought.
Check your bromides at the door.
I think semantics like bipartisanship, Republican, Democratic, conservative, liberal, moderate, center, well I don't think these labels are conducive to solving problems. They anchor us in the past.
America excels when it is free thinking and moving and dynamic and progressive. When ingenuity is allowed to flourish in all disciplines--art, science, philosophy, education, and yes, politics.
February 16, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that those labels everyone always talks about getting beyond represent schools of thought. These wells are sunk deep with a lot of effort and not entirely to no avail.
Of the labels you mentioned I believe Liberalism is the one that represents free thought. Liberals Are in essence pragmatic in their aproach to problem solving. As H truman said, if our policies don't work then we'll try something else. Compare that to, if tax cuts wreck the economy well then we'll try more tax cuts.
As to getting past the party labels, I think Obama just tried that. How's that working for ya?
February 16, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's working well. End result: the stimulus passed. Despite those who thought it more important to cling hard and fast to their label.
My point is, come to the table and participate in an honest debate, or the train is leaving without you.
February 16, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
February 16, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to your question...
Many people would, in theory, if bipartisanship did not come at the cost of sinking the country.
Under the current circumstances, though, the answer is:
1) the Washington Post editorial writer(s), who evidently have not yet grasped Econ 101.
2) conflict-avoiding American citizens who haven't taken, or yet grasped, Econ 101.
February 16, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your question, I want bipartisanship.
I want us to stop saying things like "We won, get over it," and start working from the assumption the other side might have a decent idea or two.
I also want us to remember that nearly half the country voted the other way, and the more it looks like we're telling them to F-off, the more opposed we all become.
It's not just about us. It's about them, too. We need them to make anything really work long term, and we ought to be smart enough to know that.
February 16, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
As pointed out above . . .
The person or party who has the upper hand on an issue in a negotiation keenly imposes their wish on their rival, but to be fair in their dealing they must invite participation by their rival, but allow their rival to impose only that which is of necessity to the success of the issue(s) originally presented.
Other than that: Fish or cut bait.
~OGD~
February 17, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
February 17, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere that a democracy is measured not by its success in imposing the will of the majority, but in protecting the rights of the minority.
Bipartisanship does not imply some political lalaland where representatives of implacably opposed ideologies miraculously come together in a circle and sing kumbaya. It's an active effort to seek enough common ground in the center to prevent violent swings in direction every time there's a change in party control.
Obama needs to build broad support for his agenda to secure its success in the long run. Democrats represent about 38 percent of the electorate, and somewhere between a tenth and a fifth of them didn't even vote for him in November. You can't build a mandate without appealing to independents and moderate Republicans who can be persuaded that you're acting in their best interests. That was the fatal flaw in Rove's permanent Republican majority.
February 17, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing, though: on some issues, there isn't really any "center". Economists, as we all know, disagree on lots and lots. Overwhelmingly, however, they believe that when there is a really bad recession the government needs to spend lots of money to try to prop up and eventually regenerate aggregate demand. What is more, they are saying that, if anything, the stimulus package just passed probably should, if anything, be larger.
There is some pretty compelling historical evidence that it is the correct one. New Deal spending had a major positive effect in reducing unemployment--even in the private sector, through indirect effects of increasing purchasing power.
It seems to me either one accepts this view or one doesn't. It's not a matter of splitting the difference and still getting the kind of effects we need. It just doesn't wash to make the "argument" that "this bill is about spending, not jobs." That isn't the sort of "argument" that meets a basic smell test. It's borne of either utter ignorance or cheap partisan tactics.
If you agree that arguments that are simply bad or incoherent do not deserve equal weight then it seems to me that the question in a given case is whether the majority is dismissing arguments by the other party because they are made by the other party, or because they are simply bad arguments that are not deserving of accommodation. Otherwise, how do you distinguish partisan intransigence by the minority from partisan arrogance by the majority?
When Reagan was first elected, almost half of the public voted for someone else--Carter or the 3rd party candidate John Anderson. He had a clear view that tax cuts, big ones, were the order of the day. Significant numbers of Democrats in Congress went along with those tax cuts.
When Bush II "won" the election in 2000, with a minority of the vote, he, too, wanted tax cuts, big ones, targeted especially, again, to the wealthy. Quite a few Democrats went along with that. Democrats in Congress didn't complain about the Bush Administration adopting a 'my way or the highway' approach to governing. Not until it became the Administration's MO on issue after issue.
When Bill Clinton was elected, not a single Republican in Congress, House or Senate, voted in support of his first budget. Not one. Bob Dole famously said it would sink the economy.
And now we see Obama, despite having reached out and accepted some Republican suggestions, receiving a grand total of 3 votes in Congress for this package.
So what gives? Seems like a double standard to me with Republican party officials where it's heads, we win, tails you lose.
February 17, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The three votes he got were the three votes he needed.
That said, I agree with you. What we saw over the past three weeks was intransigence, pure and simple. I'd like to believe it was a case of competing ideologies, but nobody even tried to make a case for tax cuts as a serious alternative to spending. It was just the Republican alternative. The tactic is to precipitate Obama's failure by obstructing the legislation, then sweep to victory in the midterms.
I think that tactic is seriously flawed, by the way. But I also think he'll need to broaden his base in order to make progress on the more challenging elements of his agenda -- health care, energy, the environment. Opening dialogue with Congressional Republicans is one way to go about it. Taking his message directly to the people is another.
February 17, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Herbert's column today is worth reading.
February 17, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink