Political Culture: Bipartisanship — What Is It Good For?

As of last night, absolutely nothin’. (Legislatively speaking, at least.) But you gotta give Barack Obama points for trying.

Presidents don’t often do what Obama did on Tuesday. A week to the day after his inauguration, he returned to Capitol Hill and spent three hours glad-handing House and Senate Republicans in an effort to win at least a modicum of their support for his massive stimulus package. True to the promises he had repeated throughout the campaign – that he would change the terms of political debate and encourage legislators to rediscover the art of compromise – Obama surrendered his home-court advantage, reminded Republicans of the concessions he had already made (tax cuts added, spending increases deleted), and asked them to help show the citizenry that its government has a firm, somewhat unified grip on the situation.

And the Republicans, true to their nature, responded, “Thanks, but no thanks.” (Apply Palinesque intonation at your peril.) Last night, not a single GOP House member defied his sewn-together-from-corpses leader, John Boehner, to vote for the package.

House Minority Leader John BoehnerOne of the hoariest clichés out there is the notion that politicians “campaign in poetry, but govern in prose.” Both Obama and John McCain campaigned last fall with uplifting calls for bipartisanship – McCain because he needed to overcome the Republican brand, Obama because he wanted to run up the score and break through the “50-percent-plus-one” nightmare of the Bush years. But even now that Obama has achieved that breakthrough, he’s still governing (at least for the moment) in poetry, and Monday’s visit to the Hill was nothing if not poetic.

Whether it was poetic like the opening moments of Camelot, or poetic like a sweet picture of a baby seal taken immediately before it’s clubbed, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Congressional Republicans, despite their current status as the Detroit Lions of American politics, have decided to go down to defeat in prose.

Their choice is hardly surprising — bipartisanship and compromise have been dirty words for Republicans since at least 1991, when congressional backbenchers pitched a fit over George H.W. Bush’s negotiated tax hike. Since then, the GOP’s fall and rise and fall have been captained by True Believers from Gingrich to Delay to W., men who would sell their constituents down the river (and often did) rather than betray ideological dogma.

Even now that the party’s fortunes are in free fall, Boehner and the few other remaining TB’s have decided that the way for Republicans to stay relevant is to become – in the new catchphrase – the “Party of No.” No support for bills written by the Democrats, no shared responsibility for the fate of the economy. And, they hope, no taint during the next election cycle if the Democrats’ ideas don’t work.

They must recognize the dangers inherent in this game. Obama received the largest percentage of the vote of any candidate in 20 years, and his approval ratings are the highest of any new president since Eisenhower. By huge margins in recent polling, Americans are demanding strong and swift action – and trust the Democrats, not the Republicans, to design and implement it. They want a stimulus package that will work, to be sure, but for now they really, really want a package. In this kind of environment, one might expect a bit more deference from the defeated party, and one can easily imagine the consequences of obstructionism.

My aim here is not to debate the merits of the package that passed the House last night. It contains a lot more Democratic ideas than Republican ones, but such are the spoils of victory. So far it looks like a colander full of spaghetti, ready to be flung against the wall. Folks of every political persuasion have identified obvious shortcomings, and have suggested ways of tinkering around its edges. It likely will undergo significant changes along its path to Obama’s desk sometime next month. But here’s the key thing: I don’t know whether it will work, and neither do you.

What we do know is that Obama would like very much for the public to rally around it, and he’d like to help that along by drumming up some GOP support. But does he actually need the Republicans? Not really. The GOP of 2009 is a paper tiger, a rural party without a true base of power (apart from the stacked judiciary), while Democrats have majorities that (so far) seem large enough to ram through any legislation they damn well please. Obama, if he chose to, could probably get his entire first-year agenda passed without a single Republican vote.

A Pelosi sandwichBut bipartisanship sure does look good right now, and Obama knows it. He and his advisors seem to have a firm grasp of the public mood, and they know that as long as he reaches a hand out to Republicans – even if they slap it away, as they did last night — he’ll win the PR battles and perhaps marginalize his opponents even more. That may be his real goal in all this; if not, it may be all he can realistically hope to accomplish.

Obama has already offered up some concessions, and likely will offer a few more before the whole thing’s done. (Having spent a bit of time on the National Mall last week, I can tell you the place could definitely use $200 million or so in renovations, and cutting that amount from an $825 billion package hardly represents a victory for fiscal discipline that Republicans should be proud of. Think of the struggling sod farmers!)

Senate Republicans likely will accommodate Obama a bit more than their House brethren did – it’s difficult to imagine the Maine dames defying a guy who won their state by 16 points, or poor Arlen Specter wanting to appear too conservative with Chris Matthews breathing down his neck. And the package may even attract some GOP votes in the House when it comes back from the Conference Committee, if it still enjoys broad public support.

Of course, the GOP’s plan is to tear down that support – or, failing that, to position themselves to say “I told you so” if the economy is still in the crapper in the fall of 2010. My guess is, that’s a losing hand. After all, what was Obama’s response to last night’s GOP recalcitrance? To invite Boehner, the weaselly House minority whip Eric Cantor, and the Senate’s Republican leadership (who are they again?) over to the White House for cocktails. Even if the lubrication didn’t grease the skids of bipartisanship, it sure sounds like it was a good time – and it served once more to remind the nation, if not Obama’s GOP guests themselves, that while they work in a building on a hill, it’s the President who holds the moral high ground.

Or is it just possible that Obama really believes in this stuff?

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • This is because the Republicans want Obama to fail. Never mind that his failure will harm the country, we have to do what's best for the party, the people be damned. To that end, they'll hold tight for two years fighting their "good" fight, hoping the administration will internally combust, then they'll swoop in with a Gingrich-esque Republican Revolution to sweep us up from the failure of Liberalism.

    There wouldn't be much of a country left to resurrect, if that indeed is their headspace, but better right in blight...
  • Old_Davy
    I think the American public is wising up and realizing that the Republicans are playing dangerous games - "politics as usual". At least I hope the public is wising up. For the first time in 8 years, they haven't elected a total moron to run the country.
  • Ted
    I think he really believes this stuff. The Republican "leadership" hasn't changed. They are still in their "no compromise" mode that's been set since The Sharon Statement.

    If Obama's political tactics prove to pay dividends in the midterms elections, however, and Republicans lose more seats, we may see a change in attitude from the Reps (but given the current crop of Reps running the show, that's not likely).
  • The Republicans now have the leader they deserve, bloated and drug-addicted.
  • JonCummings
    I always figured Elvis was a Republican...
  • I'm just having fun with Boehner's name, waiting for Mike Seaver to come along and put him wise.
  • The Republicans own what went wrong from 2000-2006, as well they should. America has elected the other team. Unless Democrats are afraid of what will result from this $800 billion hail Mary pass, they should be proud to own it. No? It will be so grand, so wonderful, so healing, so gosh darn stimulating that the Republicans will be in electoral purgatory from here to eternity. Right?

    I can't read Obama. He's still an enigma to me. Does he really believe that tax cuts will help turn the economy around? Then he should be proud to own the ones in this package, even if the GOP wouldn't support it. (In the debates, Obama admitted that lower taxes might result in increased revenues, but that they should be raised on the rich anyway, for "fairness." But right now, I assume he is concerned about bigger issues than whether tax cuts will marginally raise or lower overall tax receipts.)

    As far as the rest of the package, there's too much in it that can be used to ridicule, cajole, and berate Democrats as the kind of pork that has everything to do with rewarding narrow constituencies (or even family members of Congressmen) and less to do with rebuilding an economic infrastructure that will outlast the government appropriations. From this perspective, it's just too tempting for Republicans to reject it. Of course I reject the 8 years of Republican spending increases, as I do this ridiculous stimulus bill.

    Last but not least, this bill is full of items that do not meet Obama's pledge to go through the budget line by line and eliminate wasteful spending and stuff that's not working. He may have come to Washington thinking this would actually happen. The problem is that Pelosi thinks she is co-President, I guess. And to some extent, she's got the power to ram a lot of this bill through, whether it makes sense or not.

    Partisanship is a nasty business. It's been going on since the days of Adams and Jefferson. It's the way the sausage gets made. I wouldn't sweat it. Liberals thought criticizing Bush for 8 years was "the new patriotism." Sauce for the goose...
  • Elaine
    I had a friend excommunicate me last week, because of my politics. Specifically, I'm not on board with Obama's lack of change in D.C. I don't see why it should surprise anybody. What amuses me is that I put up with snide remarks and idiotic rants about evangelical bible thumpers (I'm not one) and such for eight years and found a way to remain friends. She didn't even last three days.
  • steve
    Elaine - good riddance to her. That's a 'friend' you don't need.

    So far Obama has been a classic hypocrite politician, but most of the media is still so goo-goo eyed over him they just don't care. It's gone so far I'd bet that Keith what's-his-name and Chris Mathews (and others) at MSNBC probably have nightly circle-jerks while staring at posters of him. It'll take a long time for most to wake up and realize this guy is not the second coming and is just another corrupt, lying, say-one-thing-do-another politician. But this one is anointed.
  • JonCummings
    It's good to see your mind is open, Steve. It's extraordinary to me that you can't give the guy a chance to actually screw up (or, perhaps, even do something right) before you pass eternal judgment on him. You write in such ludicrous generalities here. Offer up some examples. Where's the horrendous hypocrisy and corruption he's shown the past--what, 10 days since he took the oath?

    Does it help you sleep well at night, having decided that everybody's a crook, everybody's corrupt, everybody has bad intentions? Disagree with someone's ideas all you want, and when someone actually screws up, call him on it. But, honestly, to blast Obama for "corruption" and "hypocrisy" at this point makes you look small.
  • steve
    I've already put these in other threads Jon... And remember, I voted for him. Lesser of two evils. Their all hypocrites.

    Hypocrisy - Claiming you are for a "new tone" in Washington and an end to "childish politics", then selecting a person who is famous for mailing a dead fish to his political opponents and telling Republicans to "Fuck Off". Nice. That's change we can believe in.

    Oh yeah, remember how he pledged to take public campaign financing and then did the exact opposite. Change you can believe in Jon.

    How about getting accolades for making a 'supposed' rule of not allowing lobbyists in your administration, then turning around THE VERY NEXT DAY and choosing a big-time lobbyist to be #2 at the Pentagon. Yeah, I know, Gates asked him to make an exception. The thing is, Obama’s the boss, he should have said "No". Hypocrite. Go Obama!

    I won't even get into his promise for no pork (then supporting this bailout mess). Maybe you don’t care about these things – I do. And they show that he’s just another politician. Say one thing, do something else.
  • JonCummings
    Well, thanks for offering examples. I'll first say that we should reconvene in a year and figure out whether anybody remembers the Defense guy's name.

    Rahm Emanuel is a brilliant strategist, and to say Obama is disqualified as someone who can bring a "new tone" just because he chose a hard-ass like Rahm as chief of staff is a huge stretch -- unless you're a Republican. Personally, I'm glad a guy like Rahm is around to play bad cop, and box some people around the ears a bit, if Obama's good-cop routine doesn't work.

    As for public financing, if you can find me one single, solitary person on the planet -- politician or otherwise -- who is "pure" (or stupid) enough to turn down the opportunity to raise $700 million, just because six months earlier he had made a vague statement on a questionnaire that opponents could claim was a "promise"...well, then we can talk about hypocrisy.

    And as for the last item on your agenda -- ????????? Please write a disseration on how the financial system is going to recover without this bailout, even if it is a mess, and then we can talk.

    And finally, I'm sorry, but it is completely unconstructive to make blanket dismissals like "they're all hypocrites" unless you are out there actively pushing for something better. Throwing bricks at everybody from the sidelines ain't gonna cut it. These are important times -- and it's no time to stand against the whole system. You gotta stand FOR something--something realistic, something achieveable. What is it?
  • steve
    Nice how you just brush 'em off.

    I didn't say Obama was "disqualified" as someone to bring a new tone. I said appointing Emanuel flies directly in the face of that. Plain and simple. And that's another hypocrite politician trait - their language says one thing, but their actions say another. Wasn't Bill Clinton a big 'family values' proponent? Right.

    Perhaps the Republicans will be mailing dead fish to him and telling him to fuck off. But that'd be unacceptable wouldn't it?

    Great logic there on the lobbyist - "since no one knows the guys name (it's William Lynn BTW) then it doesn't matter that he broke his high-and-mighty promise in less than 24 hours". Ok, as long as no one knows the lobbyists names, then we'll just roll the welcome mat out to 'em. What a cop-out Jon and you know it. Hopefully you are just as understanding to your spouse or girlfriend when she lies and breaks promises to you. Again, this is not change anyone can believe in. Make promise, break promise. Perhaps he consulted with 'ole Dubya that day. Bottom line, you have no answer for this, but you don't see it for what it is. You just like the guy, so you'll turn the other cheek.

    As for the current shit-sandwich (aka "Stimulus Bill") out there, I, nor anyone else as you stated, has the answers. All I know is that Obama talked a lot about ending pork. He even admitted when challenged by McCain in the campaign that he was a huge earmark-offender by posting all his miserable boondoggle earmarks on his website. But when no so-called experts are sure of what may work in this environment, I guess he feels it's okay to let earmarks and tons of pork go through. "Maybe earmarks will get us out of the slump. Oh yeah, didn't I pledge to attack those?" Whatever.

    And as far as the campaign money, wow Jon. I think you wrote something that says, in effect, Obama is not "pure". Are you sure you don't want to retract that? MSNBC may not allow you to watch anymore :)

    Look, I ain't saying the guys evil. But I challenge you to be critical of him when appropriate, and I'm not sure if you can. Perhaps you need to rub some icy-hot on your legs like the boys over at MSNBC need to do. You can only be numb and tingly for so long. Hell, the boys at Fox never did rub it on their legs after 8 years of Bush. I'm just saying open your eyes, get off the altar, and see him for what he is. A politician. And that's not a compliment.
  • JonCummings
    I hate when these reply windows get so thin...

    One by one: I have little further to say about Rahm. You've made yourself clear: Only Bambi would have made an appropriate chief of staff. Fine. I get it. I disagree with it, but that's fine. To my mind, a chief of staff has to be the single most vigilant defender of the president's time and agenda. Clinton had an Arkansas buddy as his first CoS, and his first term was chaotic. Bush had a bureaucrat who got rolled by Cheney on a regular basis. Rahm seems like an ideal guy for this job, and I'm glad he's there.

    As for William Lynn: My point is that, considering everything else that's going on in the country right now, this is an infinitessimally small issue. I plan to write about this a bit on Thursday, but Obama's biggest mistake here was not in hiring the guy who he and Gates thought they needed -- it was in putting himself in this "no-lobbyist" box in the first place, starting in the campaign.

    The question is, are the American people smart enough to have it explained to them that sometimes the most qualified guy for a particular job is somebody who's worked as a lobbyist? Obama, in the campaign, sought to equate "no lobbyists" with purity of intent, and he scored points that way, but it was stupid nevertheless. He undoubtedly knew a situation like this would come along quickly, but in the realm of public perception he made it impossible to hire an entire category of qualified people without attracting this kind of vitriol. (Never mind the stipulations Lynn was required to agree to -- in writing -- that he will recuse himself from any DoD actions that involve Raytheon or that might exploit his former lobbying activities.)

    Your continued confusion of the stimulus package with "pork" escapes me. Yes, the Democrats are taking some liberties in labeling as "stimulus" a lot of spending priorites that have been neglected by the other party for years--so what? They won the election -- they get to take the ball and run with it. "Pork" is generally considered to be the addition to a spending bill, outside the public's view, of projects that will benefit an individual Congressman or Senator's district or state. That's not what's going on here--at least not yet--and Obama continually says there will be "no earmarks" in the final legislation. We'll see about that, but as for now, all of the spending measures are right out in the open for everyone to see and debate. That's not "pork."

    Re: the campaign financing, I never supported Obama because I thought he was "pure" (though I think he was purer than most, if not all, of the alternatives). I support him because he's smart, he's savvy, he's inspiring, and because most of the time I agree with him.

    Look, Steve, I'm a Democrat, a liberal, and (so far) an Obama champion. As such, I'm likely to find things such as William Lynn or the campaign-finance "pledge" kinda trivial--though I don't consider Tom Daschle's foibles trivial at all. I'm gonna be slower than Republicans, or Rush Limbaugh, or total cynics like you to pick on Obama. And I'm not gonna make arguments I don't believe in just because you're challenging me to be critical "when appropriate." What you think is appropriate and what I do are probably always going to be very different things; that's the nature of political argument, and I obviously don't shrink from it.

    To my mind, your standards for political and governing activity are both too high and too low. You seem to demand absolute purity and perfection from politicians (though you obviously expect the complete opposity), and as soon as someone does a single thing that violates your code of purity you toss him on the "they're all corrupt hypocrites" rubbish heap with everyone else who's betrayed you. Which is to say, everyone.

    I believe it's important to hold politicians' feet to the fire both on issues and on ethics, but politics is like making sausage. And even the guy who makes the best sausage around is probably doing something disgusting in the process.
  • steve
    Awesome. We'll agree to disagree. I'll continue to be a fierce independent (till i die!), and you'll continue to be a fierce liberal. At least, to your credit, you do bend from the rigid blindness of pure partisan-ism. Only when I prod you enough.

    I'm glad you're honest enough to be appalled at Daschle (don't worry, I won't tell your friends). How about the other two? It seems Obama must be picking his cabinet members off an IRS delinquency list that was mistakingly left around the Oval Office. Someone might wanna check on that...... (I can't resist Jon :)

    But I have to say, the sausage line at the end is pure classic. Now that's good writing!
blog comments powered by Disqus