Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose

UPDATE: At tonight's press conference, CBS's Chip Reid asked President Obama about whether, given the lack of bipartisanship on the stimulus bill, the White House was "moving away" from its "emphasis on bipartisanship? And what went wrong?"

To his credit, Obama said that his "bottom line when it comes to the recovery package" is: does it create or save jobs? And later, in response to a question from AP's Jennifer Loven, Obama said: "I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed."

***

ORIGINAL POST: The first question at tonight's White House press conference should be: Mr. President, what is your priority -- bipartisanship or what is best for America? And when the two are in conflict, which are you going to choose?

Although the answer should be obvious, the president's actions over the last couple of weeks have left many wondering.

And when I say "bipartisanship," I am referring to the Washington definition: going to the other party, splitting any differences you have, patting each other on the back about how nice and civil you are being, and moving on.

If this is what is meant by "bipartisanship," the events of the last two weeks have shown beyond any doubt that the goal of bipartisanship and the goal of what is best for America are incompatible.

Real leadership is putting forth a bold vision and relentlessly building a consensus around it -- not splitting the difference with a party whose leaders believe, among other things, that government jobs are not real jobs, and that Obama's stimulus plan is "the socialist way."

When Galileo became convinced of the truth about how the solar system works, he didn't decide to just split the difference with the Pope so he could get a few nice editorials about "common ground" and "working together." If he had, countless ships would have sunk -- and sailors drowned -- by heading out to sea armed with maps and navigation principles derived from the compromise.

Perhaps there will come a day when the Venn diagrams of the Republican Party and the national interest actually intersect. Today, however, we find ourselves with a Republican Party whose new leader, Michael Steele, went on This Week and claimed, to the obvious puzzlement of George Stephanopoulos, that government jobs aren't real jobs because they go away. Unlike private sector jobs, which are permanent. Except when they aren't -- like for 2.6 million people in the last year.

That's today's Republican Party. It's a party that, instead of a stimulus plan, puts forward a no-spending all-tax-cut proposal, pushed by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, that would do nothing but harm -- and the plan still gets 36 of 41 Republican votes in the Senate. As Paul Krugman put it: "There isn't much room for bipartisanship when 87.8% of the other party is totally irresponsible."

It's the party of Secretary of Transportation -- and former GOP Congressman -- Ray LaHood, who told CNN's John King of his efforts to reach out to his former colleagues and convince them to do the right thing on the stimulus bill. That effort netted him zero votes.

It's the party of GOP Rep. Pete Sessions, who says Republicans might need to adopt a Talibanesque approach to taking on Obama.

This is the party Obama wants to split the difference with?

Let's remember, this is also a party that already blocked a stimulus bill last year -- one that, had it passed, could have mitigated the economic suffering we are now experiencing.

As John Conyers told me this weekend, "it's hard to hear Republicans, early in the day -- before they've even taken a drink -- say that what we need is less regulation and more tax cuts." As if the last eight years never happened.

Let's take a look at how sweet the fruits of bipartisanship have been so far. The biggest cut to the stimulus bill made by Senate Republicans was the $40 billion in state aid axed out by bipartisan cover girl Susan Collins. According to the LA Times, here are some of the results of this "compromise": "Parks will close. Environmental programs will be scaled back. Bus and ferry routes will shut down, possibly sending more drivers onto clogged streets and highways. Schools may go without school nurses, and classes may become more crowded. Sick people who rely on state health programs may instead get sicker."

And what will the nearly $90 billion in cuts to the bill mean in terms of jobs? According to Krugman, the upshot will be 600,000 fewer jobs.

In fairness, not everyone agrees with that figure. Dean Baker thinks the cuts will mean the loss of only 500,000 jobs.

Whichever it is, hooray for bipartisanship! So far, Obama's devotion to it might cost at least half a million jobs. Now I'm sure losing their job is going to be unpleasant for those half a million people and their families, but perhaps when their children get sick over the next year, instead of paying for a doctor with the health insurance they'll no longer have, they can heal the child with pleasant talk of Beltway bipartisanship.

But even though half a million jobs have already been sacrificed on the altar of bipartisanship, don't expect any kudos from the self-professed champions of bipartisanship in the DC media.

For instance, there was Mark Halperin on Charlie Rose, warning that the White House's recent criticism of those opposing the bill "is turning off Republicans" and "forcing them back into the arms of Rush Limbaugh."

Or you get the Washington Post editorial page wagging its finger at Obama, calling his accusation that critics of his plan were peddling "the same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis" a "thinly veiled reference to Senate Republicans" that is "a departure from his previous emphasis on bipartisanship."

The danger of making bipartisanship a goal -- an end unto itself -- is that the actual details of the bill become secondary to the process of passing it.

We live in a world in which one of our two parties is willing to allow the country to go down the drain for its own short-term gain. Here is the potentially catastrophic game of chicken Republicans are playing: They want to force enough compromises in the stimulus bill -- which is already not bold enough - to make it too weak to succeed. Then, having negotiated these compromises, they won't even vote for it -- which will allow them to run against the "collapsed Democratic economy" in 2010. And 2012.

Obama and his economic team know what kind of stimulus plan has the greatest chance of speeding up our economic recovery and alleviating the suffering of millions in the meantime. So they need to stop trying to appease the bipartisanship fetishists.

If the stimulus plan doesn't work, it won't be because it wasn't bipartisan -- it will be because it's not big and bold enough.

P.S. The criticism of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake has begun to reach critical mass. Here are Drew Westen, Tina Brown, and Jane Hamsher taking their licks.

Comments

[Eres]

I gave cast my vote and I can take it away. It is that simple. My opinion of this administration hinges on the Stimulus Package, component by component, and the details of TARP 2. Thus far, I am less than impressed. Obama can either defer to economic experts and put together a logical plan that might have a chance of working, or he can continue to rely on the judgment of the bureaucrats and corporate power brokers who got s into this mess. It really is that simple. If the sham they're pushing as aid this week passes, he loses my vote in 2012.

[strangerinthenight]

The President has no cohesive plan for TARP 2 - The cost of toxic asset is estimated up to 60 trillion - sub prime mortgage, swaps, derivatives and collateral debt obligation. I just don't know how the government can absorb these toxic assets that is clogging the bank. No one has explain how saving these banks will help creat jobs.

This simply is staggering. When Geithner said the plan is still in the works, that tells me, there is no plan yet.

[Badger84]

While it is desirable, I would ask that President Obama not invest too much in bipartisanship. Bill Clinton was called the codependent president for his efforts to reach across the aisle--and remember the results. My guess is that President Clinton would have a lot of insight and advice on this.

[dobberdoss]

'What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed."

No President Obama, what got us into this mess is outright unregulated greed based on DEBT and you sir have just added to that DEBT!, Does he not see this? The damage has been done already, all this so-called "stimulus package" will do is make the pain drawn out instead of geting it over and done with.
Some wont agree with me here and thats fine, but to those people i say this, how do we recover our country from massive debt using a package that adds to that debt over 1 trillion dollars excluding interest payments? Just think for a second and ask yourself this: "If you had a massive debt to pay would you borrow more money to try and pay that debt off by creating a job for yourself using that same debt? Does anyone see that this will not work? Most people in debt have to either sell their assets( if they have any of value) OR they have to declare bankrupcy. America MUST declare bankrupcy so the real problem can be solved.

[evekendall]

Leadership trumps bipartisanship.

[booboo111]

Hey, he reached out and got slapped into reality. America voted for change, BIG, BOLD, NO HOLDS BARRED CHANGE! Now we're controlling ALL three branches of government. Run with it while you have the chance, Barack, and be damned any republican that gets in the way. You have the political capital, NOW SPEND IT! Sound familiar?!

[JonShank]

I think that perhaps the most genius thing that the Obama admin. has done with regard to the 'stimulus' package is to put forth the idea that they will 'create and save' jobs. First off, there is really no way of quantifying how many jobs have been saved and secondly very little way of showing how many jobs the bill itself has actually created outside of the government-made infrastructure jobs.

I do think that Obama should continue to work towards bipartisanship in a reasonable way. He doesn't have to be a wimp, but he can show the American people that he is continually trying. That way he will show the knee-jerk contrarians for who they are in the Repub. party.

[lp57]

Damn!! Arianna, as usual, you are right on. As a self described "progressive" I always find your posts not merely informative, they are (or have been to me, along with Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes' radio programs) transformative. When you guys issue calls to action people tend to respond and I am no different. What you have written here, in my opinion, is just that. A call to action.

I agree that this strategy of "reach - out - to - the - other - side", will not work. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not our President was acting in good faith or not, as you said, the minority party has only one thing in mind...2010 elections. Consequently they have demonstrated their intent on sabotaging any chance that it actually might work in order to have that as an issue to run against at that time.

As I've said before, let them continue their failed narrative of fear, greed, and inaction until they find themselves so marginalized that they just won't matter any more.

[Ghostzapper]

This is what happens when someone is in a position that has no real executive experience. It will take time and hopefully he will luck into the right answers.

[StillIRise]

How did John McCain's YEARS of experience serve him? Was it his experience that inspired him to choose the least prepared, least qualified and least suitable person, in Sarah Palin, for his running mate? Maybe it was his experience that motivated him to suspend his campaign and try to postpone the debate with the "no real executive experience" candidate so that he could fix the sound economy, that he went to Washington to do, and made an even bigger mess of it! George Bush surrounded himself with the most experienced people on our political landscape, and his proved to be the worse administration in the history of our country.

Experience is meaningless without the vision and wisdom and judgment ... and most of all, the integrity ... to be an effective leader. In this respect, President Obama outshone both of his opponents and his predecessor, which is why the American people elected him to the presidency!

[pjones006]

I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

[TurkerB]

Absolutely agree with your comment....

[strangerinthenight]

The President is hardly gaining confidence, has failed to convince the public and the private businesses a plan for RECOVERY. All that has been delivered are BAILOUTS that only worsen the conditions of main street.

At Monday's Press Conference, the President declined to take question about the New Financial Responsibility Plan, citing " I don't want to steal the spotlight from the Treasury Secretary Geithner, "He'll be terrific."

Geithner was dismal - too vague, he parrots a skeletal plan without the meat. Where the entire nation breathlessly waiting for SAVING GRACE, Geithner Quote: " We're still working on it," meaning "Plan does not yet exist. Wall Street reaction was instantaneous - nearly lost 5% of the entire GDP.

I don't see a mark of assurance when the President speak of recovery, nor marked assurance of adept knowledge with this recovery plan. For all his intellectual abilities, oratorical genius, the POTUS is just not adept to issues of Public Policy, Financing and Economics. I don't see or perceive any authoritative position, instead, he relies of his experts - Geithner and Sumner .

A man of integrity is a man of his word. He does not break his own rules and extends moral waivers to tax cheats and corrupt lobbyist.

Our government is so complex - it takes time to the working of governance even to the most intellectual homo sapien. Like it or not, experience counts . . . . a lot.

VISION, WISDOM, JUDGMENT AND INTEGRITY - MARK OF A

[Samalabear]

And that's why I think Joe Biden's remark of the stimulus bill being possibly 30% effective was not a gaffe but an honest assessment of the situation. Yes, I guess Obama didn't like that, but that's the reality.

Obama needs to get his priorities straight. Health care is next and he's not going to be Republican support for that. When it comes to Republicans, what is good for Congress is not good for the American people.

[StillIRise]

Obama needs to get his priorities straight???

He's been in office less than a month. What priority was more essential and more immediate than the economy? He didn't need Republican support for the stimulus bill to pass either, yet his overtures of bipartisanship didn't stop it from passing nor stop him from doing what he needed to do to make sure it did pass. In spite of the Republicans' agenda, they have not gotten in the way of his agenda.

So what's your point?

[dartagnan]

"Here is the potentially catastrophic game of chicken Republicans are playing: They want to force enough compromises in the stimulus bill -- which is already not bold enough - to make it too weak to succeed. Then, having negotiated these compromises, they won't even vote for it -- which will allow them to run against the "collapsed Democratic economy" in 2010. And 2012."

I've been saying this all along. The hidebound ideologues of the Republican Party are not interested in "bipartisanship" or in the well-being of America -- they are interested in making the Obama presidency FAIL and will do everything in their power to do it. It is ALL partisanship, ALL the time with these people.

If the administration can get its legislation passed without a single Republican vote, fine, do it. Let the country see the Obstructionist Party in full cry -- like Boehner throwing his phony temper tantrum on the floor of the House. If the Republicans in the Senate threaten filibuster, fine -- make them actually DO IT instead of caving in the moment they threaten it.

[catzoned]

If President Obama does not even try for bipartisianship, the Repugs will say he was lying about his campaign promises. They are just going to obstruct him each and every way they can. Personally, I think the Repugs are just making themselves look more and more foolish with every day. And they are not going to stop harping about tax cuts until their wealthiest are given the Bush tax cuts as well.

[jmw2006]

Right on the mark Arianna.

As far as Mr Geithner is concerned I would like to add my humble opinion.

He, like the President" inherit an immense pile of mess, left behind by a bunch of criminals. Only 3 weeks into office those same NAY sayers responsible for the mess expect immediate results.

Let them stew and spew their venom. I for my part am quit comfortable with the way things are going right now

[Ghostzapper]

Geithner was head of the NY Fed before during and after the financial meltdown. He was in the kitchen with the cooks. He was a team member and had input on TARP. He is not instilling alot of confidence globally.

[Guitarsandmore]

Nothing from nothing is still nothing

Tax cuts only help the employed who make lots of money, like the same people who believe they just can’t live on $ 500,000 a year.

The growing number of people who are unemployed, on social security disability, or social security, have nothing to gain from tax cuts. Nothing from nothing is still nothing.

Furthermore, we have already seen that when the rich get tax relief they lay workers off anyway and hire immigrants or outsource jobs to India and pay themselves a nice fat bonus.

Friday on CNBC at about 5:30 A.M. pacific they were talking about how to solve the foreclosure problem and the little bobble head wagging her tongue said “ we should really import some more Chinese immigrants and let them occupy the foreclosed houses”. Talk about out of touch. Later on, Jim Cramer made the comment that Wall Street owns the Whitehouse now. These are really arrogant out of touch comments that prove once again Wall Street is only here for Wall Street and does not exist to help out Main Street. And they are proud of it. They are arrogant about it. FIRE THEM ALL.

EVERYONE STOP BUYING STOCKS NOW! LET THEM GO DOWN IN FLAMES!

[MysticInd]

Funny that Barack would think the Congress would care and want to work together. Just not ready for Aquarian Prime-time.
Hopefully he'll correct it for the next stimulus package... why do they call it package? where's the bow?
great piece, Arianna!

[ModerateMouse]

Brilliant piece.