Glenn Greenwald goes to great lengths this morning to demonstrate that the American people do not crave bipartisanship. He points out that a recent New York Times poll (.pdf) indicates that the people want (by a 56%-39% margin) Obama to stick to his campaign promises rather than diluting them with Republican ideas and that they would prefer it (by a 79%-17% margin) if the Republicans would drop their priorities and work with the president on his agenda. In other words, the people want the Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner but don’t want Obama to do so if it is going to water down the Change he promised.
So far, so good. Greenwald makes an important point and fairly criticizes the national press for failing to understand and report on the mood of the country. He also takes fair shots at Democrats that sometimes behave as if they don’t understand the mood of the country either. But, what bothers me is the stridency with which Greenwald attacks the concept of bipartisanship, as if the Democrats are engaging in it in some self-destructive and self-defeating way. As far as I can tell, the only evidence for this is based in the theory that the stimulus package was watered down far beyond what was necessary to gain 60 votes in the Senate. And, even if we take this theory to be true (which I don’t), it ignores the possibility of any tangential or delayed benefits from setting a tone of cooperation and respect in the context of a call for unity and setting petty bickering aside.
Obama’s poll ratings remain stratospheric and it should be acknowledged that one likely reason for that is that people like his tone, temperament, and style. His ‘bipartisanship’ is all part of that brand. And one thing we should also acknowledge is that Obama will have an easier time getting 60 votes in the Senate if he retains his popularity. The less popularity he has, the more concessions he will have to make. At the same time, we make a mistake if we use the Republicans’ near-unanimous opposition to the Economic Recovery Act as the baseline for future bills. Future bills will be worked through committees that Republicans serve on, and there will be ample opportunities to peel off votes in return for input. Treating the Republicans with a certain level of respect, even if unwarranted, allows them take down their defensive shield, if they are so inclined. And it also prevents them from finding easy rallying points around which to unify and do effective message opposition.
The fear that the Democrats will needlessly water down legislation is way overblown and ignores that a concession today can obviate the need for a concession tomorrow. I understand why after years in the minority many Democrats instinctively flinch at the idea of bipartisanship (capitulation), but we really need to get over it now that we’re in the majority.
I don’t have a problem with Obama reaching out to Republicans. So far it’s only highlighted their obstructionist, clinging-to-failed-ideas, favor the elite, scare mongering selves. It’s been a plus for Obama and a negative for Republicans. Or should I call them “Rushpublicans”?
But for me, I’ve learned in the last 8 years to absolutely despise elected Republicans, and my respect for elected Democrats has slipped down many notches.
The R’s pissed on the law, the constitution and the people for 8 years. Now they’ve suffered a massive loss of former near-absolute power. They can’t piss on the people any longer, and that pisses them off! So, when they’re invited to the party they piss in the punchbowl and then complain because we don’t line up to drink it.
So, stop flinching at bipartisanship? That’s gonna take a long time.
yeah, I know. And, it’s the same on the other side.
You’re right. But the difference is that the R’s hate us because of the years of demonization they practiced, from the fear of what D’s “might” do. Whereas D’s hate R’s because of what they actually DID do.
My wish is that Steele keeps his mouth open and lips moving, wider than a wide-mouth bass:
Thinkprogress
sad the desperate GOPs — their rationale in the selection of Steele as RNC chair and Jindal as their rising star was so obvious.
“Obama’s poll ratings remain stratospheric and it should be acknowledged that one likely reason for that is that people like his tone, temperament, and style.”
(The American) People also liked George W. Bush’s “tone, temperament, and style” (by similar ‘stratospheric’ poll proportions (around 85+ % or more ) on and for some time after September 12th, 2001.
How’d that work out?
What’s the advantage of a majority if everyone’s idea of bipartisanship remains Democratic capitulation?
Perhaps you’ve heard that the Obama administration has already embraced many of the most controversial Bush theories of executive power and secrecy — including denying torture victims the right to a day in court based on a radical “State Secrets” theory; denying Bagram detainees any rights to habeas corpus based on the same “War on Terror” extremism of Bush/Cheney; and numerous other similar episodes.
It’s fine to defend those if you want. But you shouldn’t pretend they don’t exist or that I didn’t reference them in what I wrote.
Glenn,
Do you honestly think anyone can get to office, much less live out their term, if they don’t support, at least in words, the unelected but more powerful government sitting behind the scenes?
Obama is going to challenge them, mark my words. But he’s going to do it carefully and discreetly, and probably, to the greatest extent possible, from behind the scenes.
You aid his agenda by making him look moderate, so I don’t want you to stop. But I want you to understand why some of us support him in this.
Wow Lisa, I am surprised it was you who wrote this.
Glenn’s point for MANY months is that some of this absolutely cannot be confronted ‘carefully and discreetly, and probably, to the greatest extent possible, from behind the scenes’.
That means no prosecutions for felonies. And it really means that Obama quickly gets tied to those crimes rather quickly, as it appears has happened.
A felony is not a child shop lifting, where you can call the parents.
nalbar
And my point is that those who have tried to confront the secret government directly have not lived to see any fruit borne of their efforts.
Even Bill Colby worked behind the scenes for many years to thwart the excesses of the CIA. And some operatives believe he still paid with his life, in the end.
It’s a worthy goal. But it is not realistic, in my opinion, which doesn’t mean, as I stated to Glenn, that we shouldn’t keep pressing for it.
I’m not defending Obama’s specifics in this regard. I’m saying time will tell, and it’s way too early to judge, IMO.
oh, you want to be realistic do you? Odd how some people want to insist that the US government is in thrall to unscrupulous moneymen and unspeakable military and spook operatives yet at exactly the same time want to stamp their feet and demand Obama not only change it right away, but announce his intention to change it.
Like everyone else, I don’t know what Obama does tactically, and what he does from belief. But I do know, what Glenn apparently does not know, that nobody smart enough to take power or smart enough to hold it for more than a second would announce he is going to prosecute the CIA.
EXACTLY!
Okay, but you didn’t really mention any of that except to note that some Republicans interpret bipartisanship to mean embracing Republican policies on terrorism. (I reread your piece twice looking for what you are referring to here, and I didn’t find it).
Yet, we’re apparently talking about two different things. I’m talking about bipartisanship as a strategy, a posture, and a tone, and looking at its real world effects.
You are looking at it as a product.
Now, you raise three specific issues.
One involves a man that was tortured in Morocco. The administration is invoking the states secrets privilege to throw out the whole case, but are they doing that because they want to be bipartisan? Could it be because the case threatens to open a Pandora’s Box that damages our cooperative intelligence relationships with not only Morocco, but Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Thailand?
Now, please, don’t think I am not concerned about this type of all-encompassing use of the privilege. That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that it is highly unlikely that they took that action to show how bipartisan they are or to demonstrate their agreement with torturing people.
You also mention the denial of habeas corpus to Bagram detainees. I haven’t found time to look at that brief, so I want to reserve some judgment on it. I want to better understand how the detainees at Bagram and in Cuba are distinguished from each other. I’m suspicious about the distinction because we have been in Afghanistan for so long and plan to stay indefinitely. But there is a distinction between battlefield captives and prisoners. I suspect that concerns about that are what’s driving the Obama administration and not any desire to be bipartisan.
The last area you hint at probably relates to the Bush email retrieval, and that would appear to be a case of either oversight or defending executive prerogatives. In neither case would it be an effort to be bipartisan.
So, while I might agree with you criticisms of certain actions the administration has taken, those concerns seem unrelated to bipartisanship.
Defending state-to-state relations, avoiding a Pandora’s Box on war prisoner’s rights on the battlefield, and forgetting to file a brief or, alternately, seeking to protect the Executive Branch, are not partisan issues. It is far more likely that the Obama administration is setting policy as they see fit than that they made these decisions to reach out to Republicans or even, primarily, to avoid their criticism.
This is the second time I have read a Booman post criticizing a Greenwald post, gone and read the Greenwald post, and found it to not be what is being described.
Maybe I just read words differently.
nalbar
Abuse of executive power is how Nixon was brought down, and the refusal to do likewise to Reagan is why the changes to our polity that Reagan made were retained. The impeachment of Clinton was partly payback, and partly an attempt to poison the well of attacks on executive power for the next time a Republican was in power. This, more than any other simply ideological issue, is what has animated the conflict between the parties – and between the wing of the Dem party that will accommodate it and the one that will not – more than any other issue. The Constitution is the ultimate battle; without it, the others are all lost.
ZIIIING!
MCA2006 was also bipartisan.
So was the FISA Amendments.
So, for that matter, was the original war in iraq.
Maybe time for a little less bipartisanship, eh?
“Maybe time for a little less bipartisanship, eh? “
Or what? You and your army will stand on a street corner and wave a handlettered poster?
That’s not “bipartisanship”, that’s the nature of state power in the USA. I’m really at a loss to recall the “partisan” platform on which Obama ran in which he pledged to fundamentally challenge the basic role of the USA as a giant military power supporting a trade empire. Did he run on the PL or Peace Party ticket without me noticing it?
Welcome to the community.
Thank you.
You nailed it.
It’s Obama W.
He stands for nothing…so he’ll embrace anything.
same old, same old at a lower pitch. Those poll numbers won’t hold. Give him a few more weeks…as Rome burns and his presidency fades.
what an empty suit.
Hello Fox news!
Thanks for dropping by.
blinded by illusions.
we’ll see how well that works for you during the April-June, 2009 window.
perhaps you missed Paul Volcker’s speech to a private audience in Toronto, Canada. Yeah, that Volcker.
Booman, I couldn’t agree more with all you say here, especially this part:
Bravo. Absolutely true and important.
And in addition, as I mentioned in my comment to Glenn Greenwald, Obama is not stupid. He knows that staying alive is going to take a lot more than just ramming a liberal agenda down people’s throats, no matter how much the populace would support such.
I wrote about the enemies Obama has already made in the top story today over at Consortium News, “JFK, FDR, and ‘Seven Days in May'”
The issues of gaining, exercising, and retaining power are things that Glenn and Digby and others don’t consider, because they are all about ineffective hand wringing as terrible things happen. We saw the same discussion when, 4 days after Holder was confirmed, people began yelling about DOJ positions. The reality is that being President does not give one absolute power and it does not change the power structure of the nation or the world.
I’m glad you understand this. I wish more on the left did.
It’s really easy to throw stones when you’re not the one sitting in the glass house.
There is a reason why the “left” has a 50 year history of defeat and collapse.
Sorry if this is obvious, but it’s weird that a bi-partisan approach at this time is even up for debate:
Pull waaaayyyy back…
Think about ‘the good of the country and the world’…
Given:
Competition in the world of ideas increases the likelihood of better policy decisions.
Given:
For competition to occur a diversity of ideas must be considered.
Given:
Bi-Partisanship (collecting the differences between parties on a single policy) naturally increases the diversity of ideas.
Conclusion:
Bi-Partisanship, over the long term increases the likelihood of better policy decisions.
There will always be practical strategy decisions that preclude bi-partisanship for some cases, but I really do think it’s generally that simple.
While I do have a low opinion of the GOP, I don’t buy the idea that none of them have anything to contribute ever.
Just like with the complaints of ‘Left Wing Hand Wringers’, Obama’s administration apparently can be trusted to filter the volume of input and come up with the right decisions.
That’s his proclaimed MO and his request and so we should all feel free to comply, including Independents, Repugs and anyone else who wants to participate. Ground Up policy-making inherently includes an increased noise-to-signal ratio.
If the Repugs continue to shit the bed in the face of unyielding ‘inclusion’, they will eventually render themselves even more ridiculous.
I guess the real question is: ‘Forget policy, how can you work with these individuals or their party after all that has transpired?’
Some of the many answers:
Greenwald has a point – to a point. But bipartisanship isn’t intended for partisans. Partisans yield to no one. Bipartisanship’s real target is the growing middle (independents, known in election cycles as “undecided voters”). These are the folks who stand at the fork in the political road and do nothing. Bipartisanship provides them a cover to choose one direction over another. Obama, ever the intuitive political sherpa, is guiding them left at the fork with his insistence on bipartisanship. The right is effectively ignoring them – thus no right turn at the fork. That’s what accounts for Obama’s current polling – and his election, for that matter. And if he keeps doing this, there’s a good chance he can bring independents with him for years.
I marvel at the Republican “strategy.” Bush barely won his two elections and yet they mysteriously believe they have majority support for their positions. Weird.
Viagra Pfizer has enjoyed a lot of advertising and has dominated the market
for treatments for male impotence. Despite the success of the "magic blue
pillolina" In 2003 Bayer introduced a real competitor with the introduction
of Cialis – the drug sopranominato the pill for the weekend, thanks to the long
duration of its effect.There you can find the best place to buy
viagra .
this is awesome spam.
Uggs or Viagra, spam it up!
BTW, did you notice his (?) two spam diaries?
I did, thanks to you.
Well, I see they’re gone now…
Anyway, time to retire here.