Thursday, February 5, 2009

Bipartisanship: What Is It? Is It Possible?

Clearly bipartisanship is needed in Washington because the American people expect and demand it. They want to see something getting done. But what would bipartisanship look like? Is it reasonable to expect partisan politicians who are accountable to their constituents to play nice with the opposition? Is gridlock simply the way of Washington?

Let me suggest a few things that would not represent true bipartisanship. First of all, ignoring principles that were the reason for entering political life in the first place is not bipartisanship. It also doesn't mean going along to get along. Nor does it mean splitting the difference so that each party gets 50% of what they want on each bill. While compromise is certainly a part of bipartisanship it needs to be achieved through a genuine search for common ground and consensus, and through the development of mutual respect and trust of the parties involved.

Certainly I think the first thing everybody can agree on is that bipartisanship requires civility among all participants. The much heralded change in tone in Washington is critical for any meaningful bipartisanship and for the possibility of achieving any kind of results in Washington. This is one area where I believe we have seen some progress since the election if it can only be sustained. The President has reached out to Republicans in Congress and the Republicans have seemed appreciative of these gestures despite the apparent inablility to get any members of Congress to actually change their minds.

Civility in itself, however, is not going to get us where we need to be. I think the second requirement at the most minimal level of bipartisanship is a refusal to be obstructionist. Certainly there is a point where it may be necessary to stand on principle even if you are standing alone, because the issue is that critical in your mind. But if your response to every issue that arises tends to be the same, that would have to be considered obstructionist. To lobby for changes in the President's stimulus package that you believe might improve the bill woud be appropriate. To filibuster or find a way to make the legislation fail in the face of the dire economic conditions of the country and the need for swift action could only be characterized as obstrutionism.

True bipartisanship also involves the search for common ground and the avoidance of a rigid ideological stance. Compromise is the result, but it needs to be a result that enables one to remain true to one's principles while at the same time recognizing that there is validity to another's point of view. The essence of meaningful bipartisanship requires a genuine belief that working together and benefiting from all the ideas around the table will lead to a better result for the country. The give and take involved in real consensus is not an easy task, but certainly would be an improvement over what we've been doing the last eight years.

Is bipartisanship possible? When I began writing this blog entry early this week I believed the answer to that question was an emphatic yes. I am no longer sure. Look at what has happened. The President reached out to the opposition, even going up to the Hill to speak to them on their own turf, which hasn't been done by a President in my memory. He removed items from the bill when Republicans objected. The result has been that the Republicans have sensed a weakness. They rushed to trash the bill with tired old arguments that have already been rejected. They actually gained the upper hand on the message. The President has had to resort to talking tough and twisting arms to get the stimulus package back on track. Bipartisanship, this isn't.

The Republicans in this case have been quite successful politically. A moribund party has resuscitated itself by hammering away at narrow talking points. They won't kill the stimulus, but they may well kill bipartisanship. Even the valid points they made early in the debate have been largely lost in the incessasnt attacks which suggest they would be happy to scuttle the stimulus entirely. If they are willing to resort to politics as usual on an issue so crucial to the future of our country, one cannot be very optimistic about cooperation on other issues. Republicans have failed the first test of bipartisanhip. Perhaps they feel that it wasn't in their interest anyway. Unfortunately, it may well have been in the interest of the American people.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see what approach the New Republician spokesman Mr. Steele takes to this issue. I sure hope he takes your position, for all our sakes.