I have no problem with bi-partisanship or even post-partisanship. I think they are lovely ideas, and that it is beneficial to the nation for both parties to find areas of agreement. Although the span of such areas of agreement is much narrower than it has been in the past, they exist. Encouraging science, technology, engineering and mathematics efforts in education, research and development and production is an example of salutary bi-partisanship.
But as Booman’s recent diary “Parties Change Their Character” and simple observation demonstrate, the Republican Party of today bears very little resemblance to the broad-based, diverse Republican Party of the past, including the fairly recent past. Its strength once lay in New England and the Midwest. The states of the Confederacy now form its gravamen. Republicans once actually were the party of fiscal restraint and environmentalism. They are now the party of fiscal fantasy and environmental insanity. The fact that the press has failed to digest these transformations does not alter them.
A successful politician needs two distinct skill sets: campaigning and governing. There is no particular reason why appealing to voters on the one hand and enacting and implementing policy on the other should be found in one person. Most voters simply do not pay much attention to policy proposals, debates, votes, or bureaucratic implementation. They have other things going on in their lives, and really only have much political power for the four minutes of democracy they get every two years or so. Beyond that, politicians frequently have good reason (to them) not to explain clearly and understandably what is at stake with a particular policy. The vast majority of voters have not been well-trained in receiving and evaluating this information. And, even if the first two necessary conditions applied, our press would rather drink poison than explain the content of policy debates while they are occurring.
So when voters express a desire for bi-partisanship; when they say they are fed up with the “partisan wrangling in Washington,” they are coming from a place of profound ignorance by and large. They are unable and unwilling to identify the sources and causes of partisan wrangling, and it benefits sleazy politicians, lazy voters and useless media outlets to maintain a vague sense of resentment with all politicians in general. So, there is a certain benefit to politicians of both parties to make appeals to bi-partisanship at election time, the outsider appeal, the post-partisan stance, the “clean up the mess in Washington” rhetoric.
But honoring consistency in politics by insisting that politicians follow through on their campaign promises is even less rewarding than insisting on consistency in our colleagues, friends and loved ones. Situations change. New information comes to light. Let’s face it: people exaggerate, shade the truth and flat out lie for their own perceived benefit. And the fact is, voters don’t really care whether a politician follows through on campaign promises nearly as much as whether or not their lives are going OK at election time – about results.
So, I have no problem with Obama making cooing noises about post-partisanship during the campaign. I think that hiring the reasonable dross of elected Republicans like Ray LaHood, John McHugh and Jim Leach was a really good idea to show non-insane Republicans that Eisenhower Republicans are now Democrats. And I am aware that Obama carries an extra burden of caution no previous president has carried. A lot of people are scared of aggressive-sounding African-American men, and he needs to be perceived to be treading lightly in political struggles. But voters form their perceptions of a politician by his or her words and public actions, not their private actions to get results.
Ronald Reagan was not popular because his policies were popular. Go look at the contemporary polls: they weren’t nearly as popular as Reagan was himself. Reagan was perceived as a trustworthy good guy because of his well-delivered words which soothed and stirred Americans’ emotions. He seemed like a nice man, like your favorite uncle. But behind closed doors, he was defunding the left, degrading the environment, eroding the effectiveness of the federal bureaucracy, helping to destroy broad-based American prosperity, and succeeding in partisan knife-fighting as hard as he could. It was the combination of good-guy image and vicious, effective partisanship which made him a transformational figure, not some vague, soothing non-partisanship.
After the impeachment of Bill Clinton over complete nonsense; after the theft of the 2000 election by a suborned Supreme Court; after Bush Jr. said everyone who opposed his disastrous wars was with the terrorists, only a disastrously naive politician could believe in the substance of bi-partisanship, that post-partisanship had any meaning in governance. I hear people say we couldn’t know the extent of Republican opposition to any agenda which wasn’t their own, that Obama had promised post-partisanship in the election and he had to try it, or it would cost him too much politically.
Bullshit.
I have said that the Democrats needed to emulate Reagan: hold a vote on an important, necessary piece of legislation, lose, identify and publicly shame opponents, make necessary compromises, and then hold a revote, and that this would have scared opponents sufficiently that opposition – especially when just one or two more Senators were needed on the final votes – would have been pushed into a corner. Objections have been raised that this would have resulted in a loss of momentum, that the press would have buried Obama’s agenda before he got out of the box.
Return with me now to those thrilling days of early 2009. The economy is in freefall. Big banks are dead but too dumb to fall over. Business is panicking. Economists estimate that about $1.4 trillion will be necessary to stimulate the economy back into operation. President Obama in conjunction with Pelosi and Reid brings out a stimulus proposal for $2 trillion of broad spending across the economy. The three of them stand on a stage, hands crossed while Warren Buffett addresses the nation about the urgency of adopting this proposal. Obama, Pelosi and Reid nod their agreement. Republicans and Blue Dogs scream that it is too much, it will bankrupt the nation, it’s socialism, it’s communism, it’s fascism. A vote is held. The measure loses in both houses. President Obama appears on stage, a grave look on his face. In his lovely low voice he pleads with the opposition to put aside partisan differences and address the economic crisis. He smiles and assures the nation that ways can be found to bring all Americans into harness again. In the days that follow, lobbyists from the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers (please remember that both core Republican organizations backed the stimulus loudly against Republican opposition) are very busy explaining the political facts in Republican and Blue Dog offices. Reid and Pelosi reluctantly agree to lower the amount to $1.4 trillion and to add some tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses. Another vote is held in both houses. I guarantee it would have passed overwhelmingly.
And now, what would the situation be? Obama would be the new post-partisan President. Business would feel included in Democratic Party decision-making. We would have a stimulus package large enough to accomplish its mission. Everyone would be seen to have had input to the final legislation. And Republicans and Blue Dogs would be terrified of screwing around with the President’s agenda.
But I don’t think these people are or were naive. I think they are enacting almost exactly the moderate Republican agenda they want to enact. Too bad their aren’t any moderate Republicans around any more to help them.
