There has been much talk over the past few years about how tired the American people are with excessive partisanship. Surveys have shown people are fed up with it and would like to see more problems solved in a collegial manner. That had a lot to do with Barack Obama's appeal in the recent presidential election. It similarly had a lot to do here in California with the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in 2003.
But when it comes down to it, there are a lot of indications that while many welcome a tone of civility, they really aren't much interested in compromising to get things done. They want their way on things. A lot of the talk about compromise appears to be just that, talk.
As a case in point, a new poll released today shows the California budget propositions 1A through 1E all losing, by 9 to 14 points. You can read about it here. These propositions are a quintessential compromise. They came after eight months of wrangling and gridlock in the California Senate and Assembly. They were made necessary only because the state's 2/3 requirement to pass a budget gives the Republican minority an effective veto.
Both sides had to agree to some things they hated in order to reach a bargain. Democrats, who would rather have preserved programs and raised taxes, agreed to $15 billion in cuts. Republicans, or at least a handful of them, who would rather have cut much more deeply and not raised taxes, agreed to $12 billion in tax hikes. It reads like a primer in the art of political compromise, and theoretically appears to represent what the voters have been asking for. Governor Schwarzenegger and the powerful California Teachers Association are supporting the deal, have raised six times the money of the no advocates and have been running ads in favor of the propositions. All to no avail, if the polls are right.
The Democratic Party convention could only muster the votes to endorse two of the five structural initiatives. Republican organizations are nearly unanimous in their rejection of all five. Too many Democratic activists and partisans would rather have no deal than agree to cuts in programs they feel are worthy. Too many Republicans would rather have no deal than agree to raise any taxes. The people are, in short, acting just like the politicians they purport to disdain. Make no mistake, if the propositions fail there will be blood. You don't fall 30% short of balancing a budget without repercussions. Prime conservative favorites like police, fire and prisons will have to lay off thousands, release convicts and so on. Major liberal favorites like schools, environment and children's health will have to be drastically slashed as well.
People are mad and of a mood to cut off their noses to spite their faces. An old saw tells us, "People generally get the kind of government they deserve." That seems as true now as ever.
Showing posts with label Bipartisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bipartisanship. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Enough of Bipartisanship
OK Barack; nice try. You did what you could. It's already time to chuck this bipartisanship kick and get on with doing what the country needs done. Yes, it is true the country wants a more civil tone in politics. People really are sick of the name-calling and smear tactics. Your campaign victory helped demonstrate that, as you stuck to the issues and won while your opponents called you a terrorist, communist, socialist, traitor and more.
That is all to the good. But do not make the mistake of confusing style with substance. For God's sake yes, the American people are ready for principle and civility in public discourse. They are fed up with paranoid rantings. They want to hear rational discussion between politicians and between the two parties. But that does not mean they want to be governed any longer by quack Republican ideology that doesn't work. As you say yourself, "We cannot go back to the failed policies of the past eight years. That's what the election in November was all about."
You bet it was. According to Gallup, barely 24% of the American people now identify themselves as Republicans. The people favored your stimulus approach over the Republicans' by 26%. In the past two election cycles not one Democratic House or Senate seat has been won by a Republican, even in cases where the incumbent was not running. In contrast, Democrats have picked up 52 Republican seats in the House and 14 in the Senate. So where, exactly, do you see a groundswell of public sentiment to water down your proposals with theirs? The American people can't get rid of them fast enough.
You went to their caucuses. Before you had even set foot in them their leaders were publicly calling for all their members to vote no. You invited them to the White House. You made changes on the spot for them. You directed your congressional allies to accept fifteen of their amendments. In the Senate negotiations you agreed to include the Alternative Minimum Tax fix in the plan, cutting $70 billion from the House package to accommodate it, even though the GAO said it would have no stimulative effect. You allowed them to cut $40 billon from aid to the states and $16 billion from education construction. Surely you do not believe the stimulative effect is stronger for having made these compromises.
In return you got no Republican votes in the House, and the three Northeastern Republican Senators who would probably have voted for it anyway. After the way they have destroyed the budget and national economy, why not do what is best and if they want to stop it then make them actually bring in the cots and filibuster the old fashioned way. Make them hold the floor and explain why they stand in the way of a national recovery bill in the midst of the worst crash since the Great Depression. In no time you'd have 300 seats in the House and 70 in the Senate.
The GOP is not going to change. They despise what you stand for. They are still spouting Hooverism in 2009. They will take as many concessions as you will give but they still will not support you. You are like a man who wants to give water to thirsty people. They believe in giving dirt. For most of the past thirty years they have been following this prescription and the nation is choking to death. Their theory is bunk and yours is right. You accomplish nothing by compromising, mixing their dirt in with your water and ladling out mud. It earns you none of their gratitude. They can't stand to see their dirt diluted in this way.
Yes, by all means keep inviting them over. Refer to them respectfully in public and private. When they come up with good ideas go ahead and include them in your initiatives and give them credit when it is due. But you can stop letting them change things just for the sake of letting them have their way on something, in the mistaken notion it will make them more tractable on something else. They are incredibly set in their views and will not be moved on policy.
So give it up. Enough of bipartisanship; there is no bipartisanship with this crew. Just vote in what you need done. You and your party were decisively elected for a reason; the American people neither believe in nor want Republican solutions. They have had enough of them, thank you.
That is all to the good. But do not make the mistake of confusing style with substance. For God's sake yes, the American people are ready for principle and civility in public discourse. They are fed up with paranoid rantings. They want to hear rational discussion between politicians and between the two parties. But that does not mean they want to be governed any longer by quack Republican ideology that doesn't work. As you say yourself, "We cannot go back to the failed policies of the past eight years. That's what the election in November was all about."
You bet it was. According to Gallup, barely 24% of the American people now identify themselves as Republicans. The people favored your stimulus approach over the Republicans' by 26%. In the past two election cycles not one Democratic House or Senate seat has been won by a Republican, even in cases where the incumbent was not running. In contrast, Democrats have picked up 52 Republican seats in the House and 14 in the Senate. So where, exactly, do you see a groundswell of public sentiment to water down your proposals with theirs? The American people can't get rid of them fast enough.
You went to their caucuses. Before you had even set foot in them their leaders were publicly calling for all their members to vote no. You invited them to the White House. You made changes on the spot for them. You directed your congressional allies to accept fifteen of their amendments. In the Senate negotiations you agreed to include the Alternative Minimum Tax fix in the plan, cutting $70 billion from the House package to accommodate it, even though the GAO said it would have no stimulative effect. You allowed them to cut $40 billon from aid to the states and $16 billion from education construction. Surely you do not believe the stimulative effect is stronger for having made these compromises.
In return you got no Republican votes in the House, and the three Northeastern Republican Senators who would probably have voted for it anyway. After the way they have destroyed the budget and national economy, why not do what is best and if they want to stop it then make them actually bring in the cots and filibuster the old fashioned way. Make them hold the floor and explain why they stand in the way of a national recovery bill in the midst of the worst crash since the Great Depression. In no time you'd have 300 seats in the House and 70 in the Senate.
The GOP is not going to change. They despise what you stand for. They are still spouting Hooverism in 2009. They will take as many concessions as you will give but they still will not support you. You are like a man who wants to give water to thirsty people. They believe in giving dirt. For most of the past thirty years they have been following this prescription and the nation is choking to death. Their theory is bunk and yours is right. You accomplish nothing by compromising, mixing their dirt in with your water and ladling out mud. It earns you none of their gratitude. They can't stand to see their dirt diluted in this way.
Yes, by all means keep inviting them over. Refer to them respectfully in public and private. When they come up with good ideas go ahead and include them in your initiatives and give them credit when it is due. But you can stop letting them change things just for the sake of letting them have their way on something, in the mistaken notion it will make them more tractable on something else. They are incredibly set in their views and will not be moved on policy.
So give it up. Enough of bipartisanship; there is no bipartisanship with this crew. Just vote in what you need done. You and your party were decisively elected for a reason; the American people neither believe in nor want Republican solutions. They have had enough of them, thank you.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What Obama Should Do Next
Thus far it appears the Republicans are getting the better of the stimulus bill debate. The Congressional GOPers are both nit-picking it on details and attacking its basic premises, contending as always that spending is bad and tax cuts are good. Even though a tax cut never built a highway or a bridge, if President Obama is not able to recapture the initiative in this debate the Republicans just may succeed in gumming up the works and stymieing Obama on his biggest initiative right out of the gate. They would like nothing better than to do this, for they would seem powerful and he crippled and ineffective for a long time to come.
For his part, Obama, due to his continuing efforts to woo Republicans and foster bipartisanship, cannot use his strongest argument, the one that was so effective in the campaign. If he wanted to skewer the naysayers all he would need do would be to remind Americans that these same people and their discredited philosophies were what got us into this mess in the first place. We have followed their prescription of cutting taxes and domestic programs while deregulating business and fighting unnecessary wars and have achieved the customary results. Anyone who would turn the economy back over to them after the last eight years must have a short memory indeed.
But he can't really talk like that if he wants to preserve any chance of bipartisanship going forward. They know this, and thus their cooperation will come with a higher price than it would otherwise bring. So they find fault with the specifics they can. Obama said today in an interview with NBC anchor Brian Williams that the total of all the spending components that anyone has objected to so far accounts for less than one percent of the package. But it is the continuing dynamic of them finding fault that is the primary story.
Obama needs to turn that around with an attention-getting part of the bill that will get people excited. Computerizing medical records, as smart and needed as that is, does not cross the excitement threshold. Neither does weatherstripping and insulating federal buildings. People want to see tangible evidence of activity, and that usually means construction, a lot of it. Obama will make a good splash tomorrow by announcing a cap on salaries for companies that have taken federal bailout money. That will play well because people are extremely angry at fat cats who've fed at the public trough and kept on with business as usual. But he should also find a visionary part of the stimulus to stand as his poster child for the public relations war now underway. Franklin Roosevelt did that with the Grand Coulee Dam and Jack Kennedy with the space program in their days, for instance. Obama would be wise to target from among the projects in his bill a 21st century equivalent.
One can hardly fault the Republicans for pushing for what they believe in, nor Obama for trying to change the partisan climate. But at some point something will have to give. Either the Republicans will need to offer meaningful cooperation or Obama will have to order the Democratic majorities in Congress to start steamrolling them and let bipartisanship be damned. If their price for partnership is a continuance of Bushism that should be a price Obama refuses to pay. That is not what a majority of nine million Americans voted for three months ago. If the president crosses the aisle too far that gurgling sound you hear will be the sound of change you can believe in sinking into the swamp of disillusionment. He should never forget one thing; he and his party won the election, and they won it big.
For his part, Obama, due to his continuing efforts to woo Republicans and foster bipartisanship, cannot use his strongest argument, the one that was so effective in the campaign. If he wanted to skewer the naysayers all he would need do would be to remind Americans that these same people and their discredited philosophies were what got us into this mess in the first place. We have followed their prescription of cutting taxes and domestic programs while deregulating business and fighting unnecessary wars and have achieved the customary results. Anyone who would turn the economy back over to them after the last eight years must have a short memory indeed.
But he can't really talk like that if he wants to preserve any chance of bipartisanship going forward. They know this, and thus their cooperation will come with a higher price than it would otherwise bring. So they find fault with the specifics they can. Obama said today in an interview with NBC anchor Brian Williams that the total of all the spending components that anyone has objected to so far accounts for less than one percent of the package. But it is the continuing dynamic of them finding fault that is the primary story.
Obama needs to turn that around with an attention-getting part of the bill that will get people excited. Computerizing medical records, as smart and needed as that is, does not cross the excitement threshold. Neither does weatherstripping and insulating federal buildings. People want to see tangible evidence of activity, and that usually means construction, a lot of it. Obama will make a good splash tomorrow by announcing a cap on salaries for companies that have taken federal bailout money. That will play well because people are extremely angry at fat cats who've fed at the public trough and kept on with business as usual. But he should also find a visionary part of the stimulus to stand as his poster child for the public relations war now underway. Franklin Roosevelt did that with the Grand Coulee Dam and Jack Kennedy with the space program in their days, for instance. Obama would be wise to target from among the projects in his bill a 21st century equivalent.
One can hardly fault the Republicans for pushing for what they believe in, nor Obama for trying to change the partisan climate. But at some point something will have to give. Either the Republicans will need to offer meaningful cooperation or Obama will have to order the Democratic majorities in Congress to start steamrolling them and let bipartisanship be damned. If their price for partnership is a continuance of Bushism that should be a price Obama refuses to pay. That is not what a majority of nine million Americans voted for three months ago. If the president crosses the aisle too far that gurgling sound you hear will be the sound of change you can believe in sinking into the swamp of disillusionment. He should never forget one thing; he and his party won the election, and they won it big.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)