(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images) House Minority Leader John Boehner spoke at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Jan. 28, the day the House passed the stimulus bill without a single Republican vote. During the stimulus debate, President Obama made several overtures to the Republicans, hoping to bring them on board with his plan, to little avail. Not one House Republican voted for the package, and only three moderate Republicans voted with the Democrats in the Senate.
A new NYT/CBS News poll (pdf) found that most surveyed said Mr. Obama should pursue the priorities he campaigned on rather than seek middle ground with Republicans. Given the decidedly partisan outcome of the stimulus vote, should President Obama give up on bipartisanship in carrying out his broader agenda?
- Larry Sabato, director, Center for Politics
- Steven G. Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society
- Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com columnist and author
- Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor, National Review
- Richard Brookhiser, author and historian
Our Leaders, Surprise, Have Strong Views
Larry J. Sabato is director of the Center for Politics, and Robert Kent Gooch Professor and University Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.
Americans love bipartisanship, and it’s easy to understand why. All of us were raised to believe that we should “play nice” and “disagree without being disagreeable.” Also, most of us are inherently suspicious of politics, parties and politicians. While more than 80 percent of Americans have some partisan identification with either the Democrats or the Republicans, just over a third have a strong attachment to one of the parties. The other two-thirds don’t like to be fenced in by a label.
And fairly or unfairly, people despise watching politicians squabble. The assumption is that they are doing so more out of arrogance, entitlement and ego than any real sense of the public good. I have heard hundreds of citizens ask why can’t the politicians just sit down, talk over their differences, and arrive at a reasonable compromise like adults?
If only it were that straightforward and effortless. The two major political parties have fundamental disagreements about a wide variety of economic, social, and foreign policy issues. They are supposed to have them. The men and women who represent the parties in Congress and the executive branch are not average individuals with unformed opinions on many topics, but rather strong partisans who have carefully thought out their world views for decades.
The American system does not lend itself to ‘national unity’ governments like those sometimes formed in parliamentary systems.
They got where they are because they were activists, motivated to make sacrifices of time and money for their principles. Most do not bend easily, and after all, the voters have elected them on the basis of their platforms and beliefs. Elections matter enormously in any democracy.
In addition, the American system does not lend itself to “national unity” governments like those sometimes formed in parliamentary systems — governments that combine the executive and legislative functions into a single dominant elective chamber. The theory that underpins a two-party system in a separation-of-powers arrangement like ours is that the parties turn their principles into practical choices on the great issues of the day.
The electorate considers those distinct options, and picks one at election time. Yes, sometimes one party wins the Presidency and the other party wins Congress — and either compromise or stalemate results. (Usually it is some of both.)
But in other elections, the people decide to put the same party in power in both elective branches. That is what happened in November 2008. The Democrats have a mandate to govern, and the Republicans have the job of suggesting alternatives and preparing to contest the next elections in 2010 and 2012 on the basis of their distinct ideas.
Every system is imperfect. Every system has flaws that reduce efficiency and effectiveness. But over time, the American system has proved itself. Civility and consultation are always welcome, and smart leaders use these courtesies to accomplish their goals. But two parties were not elected to govern in 2008, and it really is that simple.
Steamrolling the Opposition Won’t Work
Steven G. Calabresi, a co-founder of the Federalist Society, is the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law at Northwestern University.
President Obama reached out in his campaign and in his transition to Republicans, and he said that bipartisanship in solving our problems would be a hall mark of the change he wanted to bring to America. The President’s desire for bipartisanship is to be applauded, and it stands in sharp contrast with the behavior of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who steamrolled over the Republicans in writing the stimulus bill.
Education and health care reform will need the bipartisan solution of free-market socialism.
I do not blame the president for Speaker Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s behavior nor do I think it is what he wants to see repeated. We need bipartisanship in many areas, but let me mention two that especially stand out.
In education, we need to move toward a system where public schools are funded out of taxes collected statewide or federally rather than through highly unequal residential property taxes. We also need many, many more charter schools and vouchers for education. The bipartisan solution to our education problems is to reform both the way we fund public schools and the degree to which they compete.
The same thing applies for health care reform. We need to provide funding for private individuals who do not have and cannot afford health insurance to buy it on the private market. To do this, we need gradually to eliminate the tax deductability of employer-provided health care plans to fund health care tax credits. This will sever the current link between having a job and having health care. It will also lead to control of health care prices because upper income consumers of health care will watch their health care expenses more carefully if they have to pay for them with after tax income rather than with before tax employer provided benefits which are seen as being a freebie.
One bipartisan solution to education and health care policy is for government to, in effect, give all citizens an education or health care credit or voucher and then let them buy education or health care from the provider they like the most. This is the essence of free-market socialism, which is what I think President Obama wants.
Going Along With the G.O.P.
Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer, is a columnist at Salon.com and the author, most recently, of “Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.”
The long-standing Beltway cliché is that there is something inherently superior about “bipartisanship” and “centrism.” Those terms are such platitudes that they now lack any real meaning. But in their common usage, they typically designate whatever views happen to appeal to the base of the Republican Party and enough “conservative” Democrats to form a majority.
‘Bipartisanship’ has meant all Republicans joining a minority of Democrats to enact Republican policies.
Over the last eight years, virtually every new law hailed as a shining example of “bipartisanship” has involved all Republicans joining with a substantial minority of Democrats to provide majoritarian support. — i.e., it’s been a mechanism for enacting Republican policies.
A list of the most significant acts of “bipartisan” votes during the Bush presidency compellingly demonstrates how that term is typically employed. It’s a way of eliminating the few differences between the parties and forcing Democrats, even when they are in power, to continue to embrace Republican governing approaches.
In 2006, the Democrats ran on a platform of opposing — not embracing — the Republican agenda, and American voters handed them a resounding, even crushing, victory. In 2008, much the same thing happened: Democrats ran on platform of “change” from the Republican approach to governance — not replicating it — and resoundingly won again.
What possible reason is there, then, to argue that Democrats ought to adopt Republican ideas — regardless of what those ideas are — simply for the sake of “bipartisanship”? Americans elected Democrats to implement Democratic ideas and will hold Democrats responsible for the success or failure of their policies. Democrats should therefore use their majority power to carry out the polices that they think are the best ones for the country, not dilute those ideas and incorporate discredited Republican approaches in order to fulfill some vague bipartisan ideal.
Besides, Republicans have made clear that they consider themselves an opposition party. They don’t want to give President Obama and Democrats political cover by allowing policies to be depicted as the consensus of both parties. Republicans represent millions of Americans who disagree with the Democratic approach and it is more democratic of them to represent those views by operating as an opposition party.
Of course, no party has a monopoly on good ideas and there’s nothing wrong with compromising with the other party when doing so yields superior policies. But bipartisanship for its own sake elevates process over substance, and does nothing but further erode the very few genuine differences that still exist between the two parties.
Tough Issues Require Bipartisan Cover
Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review.
Whether and how President Obama reaches out to Republicans depends on what he wants to accomplish. If his agenda centers on legislation that poses few political risks, then he can afford to pass bills on party-line votes. He would lose some of the aura of a president who wants to move past old divisions, but that aura will probably wane anyway as he comes to be seen more and more as an incumbent.
On issues like entitlement reform and global warming, congressional Democrats may not want to bear the political risks alone.
The stimulus bill was, as legislation goes, low-risk. It has been a long time since anybody has lost a congressional or presidential election for spending or cutting taxes too much. But there are signs that Mr. Obama wants to move in areas that pose greater political risks, and it is hard to imagine that congressional Democrats will want to bear those risks alone.
Health-care reform would almost certainly involve threatening some Americans’ existing arrangements. Entitlement reform would involve either raising taxes, cutting future benefits, or both. Action on global warming could raise energy prices. Tax reform would anger many groups. Would Obama be able to keep his party unified on these issues? If not, he will need to have more than a handful of Republicans on his side. And to get the requisite numbers, he will have to let Republicans have meaningful input in the legislation.
In my view, President Obama could do himself and the country a lot of good by moving early on a bipartisan reform of Social Security. In deciding how much to reach out to Republicans, he will not merely be making a stylistic or tactical choice. He will be figuring out what kind of president he wants to be.
An Empty Fantasy
Richard Brookhiser, a senior editor at National Review, is the author of “George Washington on Leadership” and the forthcoming “Right Time, Right Place: Coming of Age with William F. Buckley Jr. and the Conservative Movement.”
Political parties are the bastard children of the founding fathers. They hoped to have a non-partisan political order: George Washington attacked parties in his Farewell Address, and James Madison wrote of them in the Federalist Papers as factions, political bacilli. Yet all the founders quickly involved themselves in the first American party system, Federalists vs. Republicans (ancestor of today’s Democrats).
Nostalgia for prelapsarian non-partisan innocence is always with us, though. In moments of great stress it can take concrete form. Franklin Roosevelt picked two Republicans, Henry Stimson and Frank Knox, to be Secretaries of War and the Navy in 1940, in the early days of World War II. Lincoln tapped the Unionist Democrat Andrew Johnson to be his running mate when he ran for re-election in 1864. Stimson and Knox performed well; Johnson, who became president after Lincoln’s murder, was a catastrophe.
Short of a world war or a civil war, bipartisanship is an empty fantasy. Parties exist for reasons — they express clashing ideas and interests in society. I imagine President Obama knew this all along. He won the White House, and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. They asked for these jobs; let’s see their stuff.
From 1 to 25 of 298 Comments
Thanks for once again giving a sterling example of why Glenn Greenwald has attracted such a large readership: Unlike the other three, he writes with his eyes on America, not parties, with clarity rather than obfuscation, and with honesty instead of ideologically driven bloviating designed as word cover for agenda pushing.
Sabato, Calabresi, Ponnuru–nice try, but sorry we ain’t buying it anymore. The jig is up. It was nice for you while it lasted. But unfortunately you gave allowed two stolen elections, two illegal wars, millions of innocent deaths, the theft of $3 trillion, continued U.S. inaction on global climate change, and greatest financial meltdown since the Great You-Know-What.
You’ll pardon us, but we don’t have time or the stomach for your BS anymore. Where were your thoughts on bipartisanship during the 8-year criminal regime of Bush Co.?
As the saying goes, STFU.
— David PeakRepublican strategist Grover Norquist famously told the Denver Post that “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.” So much for the GOP’s interest in collaboration.
Pres. Obama consistently strives for bipartisan consensus but it takes two to tango, so why bother?
He was elected to get things done, not to make nice with people who want him to fail at the expensive of the nation.
— Richard PachterCalabresi: “This is the essence of free-market socialism, which is what I think President Obama wants.”
— timothy3Free market socialism?! I think the Mayans were right; 2012 is the end of the age. After all, when language ceases to function as a tool of understanding, all of us are left with the ppppbbbbttt sounds of a Warner Bros. cartoon.
Some people think that bipartisanship is splitting the difference between reality and unreality.
The biggest reality confronting the world at present is its dire economic situation. The biggest unreality is the idea that the cure necessitates more of the same failed policies that got us here in the first place; i.e. bubblenomics, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, irrational consumption, an unsustainable medical system, and government budgets that remove big expenditures like the Iraq war from the budget.
A little less ideology and a lot more practicality, please.
— Philip GeigerGlenn Greenwald commands an informed audience that understands that the GOP is history, that politicians on both sides of the aisle are at mercy to a criminal campaign system, and the Bush years represent a criminal overthrow of any form of legitimate Constitutional governance. Until the Bush Administration is investigated, from its involvement and understanding of 9/11 to its last terrible day, there is no reason for any rational citizen to trust a goverment that has brought us the Iraq horror show, the Afghanistan occupation, new missile attacks in Pakistan - the list goes on and on. Bipartisanship? Please. The miltiary-industrial-Congressional-complex rules all.
— Jason JensenGiven the way the Republicans have done us in, I couldn’t care less about Bipartisanship.
This is from someone who believes in balance between conservative and progressive, government and freedom from being governed.
While the President and Democrats have reached out to to the Republicans they have reached out to no one.
Honestly, I don’t understand why folks like Senator Spector or the Senators from Maine are even still in this party since there is no more moderation in it to speak of.
In summary the Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Instead it is the party of the Stinkin’.
— David EvanBrookhiser gets it right - Show us your stuff, Dems.
The Dem FDR met his Pearl Harbor and several years later, killed a million innocents in Dresden and Japan and managed to give away half of western civilization to the communists. That genocide of 100 million continued until a Republican Reagan tore down that Wall.
The Republican Bush met his Pearl Harbor on 9/11 and took the battle from the wrecked streets of NY to the Muslim’s backyard - no more innocent Americans died in American streets.
So bring it on - Team Obama should worry not for bipartisanship because it might start to worry for support from its own party.
— Russ ChelakGiven the results of the recent vote on the stimulus package I am skeptical of the role of bipartisanship. To be most cynical about such a process, one could take the position that the Republicans have a vested interest in seeing President Obama and his plans fail. Given the dismal showing of the last Republican President, could it be that the Republican side is fearful of the contrast a very successful Democratic President would offer to the starkly poor showing of their most recent leader? Could it be that overtly partisan voting could supercede consideration for what is overall best for the country? And in that same context would lie the imposition of partisan ideology rather than consideration of what might overall be best for the nation. This would not seem to be a time for stark individualism or “partyism” but rather a most considered view and expression of what is best for the nation as a whole. Some Republican ideals such as tax reduction, although pleasant enough in the concept may not be necessarily best at the present moment. One of the endearing qualities of many Americans is a long standing belief in Santa Claus: this jolly old fellow who comes around and gives us very nice things and best of all they are free. We (and the Republicans) need to get over that concept and the sooner the better. e fokes
— ernest fokesWant an idea why “bipartisanship” is a non-starter as long as Republicans are one of the parties involved? Consider Mr. Ponnuru’s book “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life”. Bipartisanship means compromises, and how is the GOP supposed to compromise with murderers? It’s laughable that you would even ask him this question.
It’s the immovable object: Democrats think Republicans are wrong (see the title of Mr. Greenwald’s book), Republicans think Democrats are evil (Mr. Ponnuru’s). The GOP will dig in and hope the country will fall apart by 2010 so they can regain power. It seems irresponsible, but when you are stopping murderers risking utter ruin is the lesser of two evils.
For those who think this is harsh and (dare I say it) partisan, keep an eye out and don’t take my word for it. I’ve rarely been wrong about Republicans for a good many years now.
— JohnI agree that most times in major news media and pundit discussion, “bipartisan” is a term used for policies favored and pushed by Republicans and supported by a minority of conservative Democrats.
Strangely, when Democrats manage to peel away some Republicans to support Democratic policies, it is then those Republicans who are discussed as ‘bipartisan’.
I mean, who can forget the ridiculously mythic figure which was built up so falsely around the right wing conservative John McCain as some model god of bipartisanship, whereas, say, Russ Feingold who sculpted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law along with McCain is depicted as a partisan and shrill ultra liberal?
— El CidBipartisanship? When fewer and fewer Americans associate with the GOP — a party responsible for getting us into this mess — why should we even listen to them? They controlled policy for 8 years — and we are reaping what they planted.
I would encourage the democratic leadership to not concern themselves with the GOP for a few years. It does not matter what they think. There’s not room to do everyone’s ideas. Their ideas got us here. Keep them sidelined.
— JayI find it interesting that Bush was so heavily criticized for not working with Democrats, now we get a debate about the importance of bipartisanship. Hmmm.
— TedRamesh Ponnuru’s request for a bipartisan dismembering of Social Security is rich.
Stop spreading the misinformation that SS is somehow endangered, or failing to work. It’s one of the most effective, and inexpensive programs that guarantees money to American workers who can no longer work, through disability or retirement. The overhead is a mere 3% (compared to retirement funds that average around 30% overhead).
SS has been brought up to date within the last 10 years, and even given a fairly low average annual growth rate (1.9% a year), SS is slated to run in the black for the next 65 years.
But, I don’t expect much more than lies from Ponnuru anyhow. He’s a Repuglicrat who accuses Dems of being “the Party of Death” while being pro-death penalty and pro-war. And why? Because many Dems don’t believe, as he does, that a cluster of cells that has no sentience deserves more civil rights than the woman carrying the womb.
— elissaFThe remaining republicans are incapable of ‘bipartisanship,’ their ideology won’t allow it. The fact that their ideology hasn’t ever worked, not even under Reagan, doesn’t stop them from thinking that the next time it will succeed. (Isn’t the definition of insanity taking the same action over and over, expecting a different result?)
The republicans have lost their mandate. Now that they cannot lead, they have two other options; follow or get out of the way. Obstructionism does not help the nation. They have no new ideas. We all voted against their old ones.
— JMThey have no solutions. Their obstruction is treacherous and unpatriotic. Now is the time to pull together for common solutions, but all they can be is partisian. Why is anyone listening to these people?
President Obama has the right (and necessary) strategy: offer the open hand, let the intransigent Republicans reject it. Now, he can proceed without resorting to any more politeness. Why, in fact, would anyone want to include a failed ideology* in reforming and rebuilding America?
*Failed Ideology: the argument that claims the Free Market provides all the guidance we need is as failed as the Republican’s favorite example of a failed ideology: Communism.
Now let me say; a well-regulated Market is a different story. It’s just stupid to ignore the blind spot in the Free Market theory.
The problems President Obama faces now are: How to get rid of walking-disaster Pelosi and how to be an inspiring enough leader to get us through the tough long haul.
In closing: I can only agree with Mr. Geiger’s statement: … less ideology…, more practicality.
— Jack N.I side with the view (best expressed, if my recollection is correct, by J. Madision in the Federalist Papers- can’t remember which one) that political parties are generally bad news. That being stated, bi-partisanship for the sake of bi-partisanship is a retarded notion. There are too many political suck-asses in Congress for which their political party serves as a convenient shield from developing and defending a principled position on a given issue. However, the barely discernible notion that bi-partisanship represents cooperative government is altogether different. Cooperation is the key to partisan gridlock, which has become our governmental merry-go-round that has circled so many times many of us are about to vomit. In sum, bi-partisanship cannot be worthwhile because, in my view, it is the off-spring of a flawed system- our two party system, particularly, and political parties, generally. Instead, politicians should rise and fall on whether they have developed principled positions based on the merits underlying the issue at hand, and whether they have demonstrated the backbone to defend those positions even when it means political peril. JKF wrote a great book about the virtue of abandoning political affiliation for principle. It would do Congress, and their constituents well to read, or re-read it.
— Erik KPresident Obama was elected with a definite mandate from the American people on a platform of change. We want change and if it has to be without the Republicans and their failed policies then so be it. I keep hearing from my Republican friends how the Democrats are going to ruin us, put our grandchildren into etenal debt, etc. Where do they think we are already? Whose policies got us here? NOT the Democrats. We have elected a leader who is dedicated to enacting legislation that will take us past the next four years and put us on the path to a sane and solvent future. The Republican’s only policy now is to stall legislation they don’t like and try to make the Obama Administration fail. Little minded people who think more of the same will turn out differently. What is the definition of insanity - repeating the same thing expecting different results. That’s them.
— ctmomLets move on and do what we elected President Obama and the other Democrats to do with or without the Republicans. We don’t have time to waste cajoling them to join us.
Nobody can put it as well as Mr. Greenwald did:
“Americans elected Democrats to implement Democratic ideas and will hold Democrats responsible for the success or failure of their policies. Democrats should therefore use their majority power to carry out the polices that they think are the best ones for the country, not dilute those ideas and incorporate discredited Republican approaches in order to fulfill some vague bipartisan ideal.”
While I’m sure they all respect President Obama’s bipartisan ideal, the American people chose him, and the Democratic Party, to put the failed Republican policies behind.
— GuadalupeIf the painful nature of this economic crisis breaks the hold of those with win/lose approach to public policy and “me first” motives, it will be well worth the pain we are all feeling.
We need to recover truly honorable, statesmanlike leaders and know our values well enough to get rid of those who are corrupt or self-serving.
Didn’t someone use the phrase “Country First” for the last election???
— Jo ScottThe bipartisanship that matters isn’t one of cooperation with a party, which may often have interests that have nothing to do with either American interests or a party’s ostensible principles. It’s engagement with the principles themselves.
Considering the merits of fiscal discipline along with state originated stimulus is a wonderful thing. Negotiating with a Republican party which suddenly appears to be enthusiastic about its lost principles largely as a political stunt? Not important at all.
— Weston CFor those you who have read Audacity of Hope you know that Obama has been wanting to heal the bi-partisanship that he claims has been ugly since the late 80’s…I congratulate him on his attempts to reach across the aisle and hope he has some success. He has been beating the odds all along we shouldn’t sell him short just because e hasn’t won over the GOP in his first 4 weeks!
— SteveI think this discussion is very useful and interesting. I am a registered Democrat, I voted for Obama and worked on his campaign. I am not happy with the Republicans’ approach to the financial crisis. Nevertheless, I don’t think that the Republicans are standing in the way of the stimulus for purely political reasons; I think they sincerely believe that tax cuts are the best way to get us out of the present crisis. I think that they’ve been shown to be wrong about that, and I wish they could see that–in fact their inability to learn from their mistakes might be more troublesome than the political motives that have been offered for their obstructionsim. But I do think it’s wrong to read their opposition as a cynical political ploy.
— Marianne JanackThis particular Republican party will be a footnote in history.
Ignore these self-righteous & out of touch politicians and concentrate on bringing along every possible Democrat and three quarters of all Governors….
— LaurieI was really hoping the Republicans could step in with constructive criticism about specific examples of poor spending bundled into the stimulus plan, because we all know how Democrats have the potential to muck up a good idea with unfathomable bureaucracy and waste. However, the Republicans just got all nutty and spewed on and on about tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. So they really didn’t help at all, did they?
As a moderate, I don’t want to seesaw back and forth between extreme liberals and extreme conservatives, hence a yearning for bipartisanship, or at least civil discourse. But, I have to say, after the past few years, and especially the past few months, I’m so disgusted by the current Republicans that ready to change my mind and register as a Democrat!
— TGFirst of all, I would have been afraid to join in this discussion and send a note if the Bush Administration were still in office. Who knows when some henchmen of Cheney’s will show up and waterboard dissenting American Citizens. So glad that era is over.
I think the Republicans are acting like a bunch of spoiled kids who are at a siblings birthday party and still want to blow out all the candles instead of the birthday boy. Talk about transparency, every time a Republican opens their mouth you see how much they can’t handle not being in charge or having the majority vote anymore. They need to get over it and move on or the next election we can replace a few more Republicans with fresh Democratic politicians.
One more thing, everyone in office (Dems and GOP) should be ashamed of allowing the automatic pay raises to continue. The country is moving to the bread lines at 500,000 citizens a month and these guys think they should still get raises! I honestly would like to see the whole bunch replaced by new fresh blood and get rid of all the old crony incumbents on both sides of the aisle.
— Ted Henderson