Thursday, January 29, 2009

What About Bipartisanship?

There is much talk about President Obama's bipartisanship initiative and the House Republicans turning it down flat by voting unanimously against his stimulus package yesterday. Some excoriate the Republicans for ingratitude. Some say Obama is naively wasting his time and now he will have to turn to hardball tactics to muscle his agenda items through. Many believe full scale partisan battle is right around the corner, that it will be a return to business as usual in Washington before long. None of these are entirely on the mark.

People need to take a realistic view of developments. I foresee Obama continuing to be solicitous of Republican sensibilities. They have given him high marks for meeting with their House and Senate memberships and offering an ear and respect. The House Republicans are not so complimentary of the House Democratic leadership, whom they feel ignored them and failed to solicit any input from them.

The fact is that political parties exist for a reason. Republicans and Democrats fundamentally disagree about the roles government should play in society. Even if the president is being nice to them, Republicans are no more under obligation to support his $825 billion economic package than Democrats would have been to support President Bush's cutting the SCHIP Children's Health program had he said a few kind words about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Make no mistake, on some matters positive relations will allow more compromises to be reached. Obama will keep working at it and will prod congressional Democrats to do likewise. But on many issues the fundamental beliefs of the two parties are simply too far apart. This is even more the case now, with Democrats enjoying an 80-vote lead in the House. Most of the competitive districts are now held by Democrats. Practically the only Republicans left are from rock-solid conservative districts. They have more to fear from primary challengers on their right if they stray from conservative orthodoxy than they do from losing to Democrats by not being liberal enough.

Will Obama have to abandon his charm offensive with the other party and turn mean to them? It's hard to see why. He has an 80-vote advantage in the House. Even if all the Republicans stick together and some Democrats defect, as happened this week, he can carry his policies easily there. The vote this week was 244-188 with the Republicans unanimous in opposition and 11 Democrats joining them. What does he have to gain by a war of sound bites with them? He advocates his views firmly, but takes the high ground of respect and civility with his "Republican colleagues," as he calls them. If they respond viciously they are the ones diminished in the eyes of moderate voters. They can throw all the red meat they want to their base. That does nothing but paint them into the corner McCain-Palin couldn't fight their way out of.

In the Senate deliberations to come, the Democrats' advantage is almost as strong. They currently lead 58 to 41, and this will probably increase to 59-41 once Minnesota is resolved in the courts and Al Franken likely takes the seat from Norm Coleman. That means even with Senate rules the Republicans probably cannot stop much of Obama's agenda. There are ten Republican Senators in vulnerable positions, holding seats in states where Obama won the presidential vote. This includes two in liberal Maine, one in such places as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Florida, and one in Iowa where Obama is extremely popular. Unlike House members from conservative districts, Senators have to represent an entire state. When that state already supports the president they stridently oppose his initiatives at their peril.

Even if Senate Republican leader McConnell leads filibusters, the White House will need to find only one, or perhaps two defectors from pro-Obama states to move its bills through. The public mood is in favor of action, Obama and the Democrats hold the cards, and they can get what they want without need for recourse to undue mudslinging.

The Republicans are crippled because their policies and theories have not worked. Their greatest strength has always been their commitment to their views. Of course, their greatest weakness is that same commitment which engenders their famous inability to understand or admit that their policies are not working and to develop new ones. Obama can continue to smile and charm, to introduce transformative legislation and to answer the public's wishes by treating the opposing party with unruffled collegiality. The American people, by giving him solid majorities in both houses, have ensured he will win his votes either way.

The Republicans in congress can either go along with him and be "me too" Republicans, or they can oppose him and be partisan obstructionists against what the majority wants. If they do the former they risk being made superfluous; if they do the latter they risk looking out of touch. For the time being the House Republicans seem to have chosen to assert their independence. If they stay with that strategy they are betting that Obama's policies will fail and they can pick up the pieces. If he succeeds, however, they might be looking at a generation of Democratic dominance. They might eventually feel forced to cede some ground. At any rate, in the next two weeks we will likely see some Republican movement in the Senate.

3 comments:

Paul Myers said...

And the major problem with the Republican leadership at this time is they don't seem to know what they want. All they seem to know is they don't like what Obama wants, yet can't seem to put an feasible alternative on the table at this time.

So, in their view, Obama's stimulus package is wrong and we're not going to vote for it, but we don't have anything for you at this time, so we'll just watch the country go to hell in a handbasket, because basically we don't like what the other side is doing about it. Are they really that afraid that it might work?

♫Arielle said...

"So, in their view, Obama's stimulus package is wrong and we're not going to vote for it, but we don't have anything for you at this time, so we'll just watch the country go to hell in a handbasket, because basically we don't like what the other side is doing about it. Are they really that afraid that it might work?"

I can't completely agree with this statement. They are making strides while trying to keep the price tag palatable.

Christopher Beam- a political reporter for Slate stated yesterday that "For more evidence that some Republicans will come around, look at the alternative bills offered Wednesday. One of them proposed $445 billion in tax cuts, with less spending than the Democratic bill. But the Democratic bill already includes at least $273 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. By the time negotiations are over, it's easy to imagine that number creeping up to the $445 billion Republicans requested. Yes, the spending projects may still turn off many Republicans. But they won't be able to say there weren't sufficient tax cuts. "

(link: http://www.slate.com/id/2210082 )

Mike said...

It begs the question whether or not the republicans are in touch with the American people. If they (as a political party) are not willing to adapt and change, are they not going against the very foundation of the Constitution? As we all know, the Constitution is a living document and stubbornness could be considered a cancer. Left unchecked long enough, the stubbornness could kill the foundation of what the Framers worked so hard to establish.

It is my opinion this “cancer” is present and the symptoms are evident in almost every facet of American life, from wages to the health of the economy. Let us hope whatever Obama is successful at implementing will be enough to steer the country back towards economic health and prosperity.