Why Bipartisanship Is A False Hope

My friend Bruce Stokes, national economic correspondent for the National Journal, and co-author of America Against The World with pollster Andrew Kohut, has written an interesting and informative column in Thursday's Congress Daily titled, "The Myth of Bipartisanship." Stokes' analysis of data on the growing divide between Republicans and Democrats and even Republicans and Independents on major economic and political issues illustrates the importance of the Democratic candidate having a clear reform program--and the understanding that such a program will have to be advocated for and fought for politically in the country and in the next Congress.

There is similar polling data on foreign policy issues, with an even wider gap on such matters as the Iraq War and the conduct of the War on Terror. The Republican party has made it clear since Bill Clinton's election that they have no interest in a bipartisan foreign policy either. One might wish it otherwise, but this is the political terrain on which the national election will be fought in the fall.

I commend Bruce's article below to you, and to your friends who are a mesmerized by talk of cross party unity from either McCain or Obama.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
An Illusory Ideal

As Americans, we, like many people, tell ourselves stories about who we are and what we believe. Too often these national myths are self-delusional.

A case in point is voters' avowed desire for bipartisanship in dealing with pressing national problems, which has become a theme of the presidential campaign.

Americans tell pollsters and journalists that they are sick of the partisan divide in Washington and want a candidate who can reach across the aisle to get things done.

But recent polling on specific issues -- jobs, health care and global warming -- suggests that Americans can't even agree on what are the major challenges facing the nation, let alone what to do about them.

Voters seem to want compromise on their own terms: "I win; you lose."

Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., tout their ability to tap into the electorate's hunger for bipartisanship. Each claims he can provide the inspiration and leadership needed to sooth partisan bickering. But surveys show such aspirations are likely to be frustrated by voters' stark differences over priorities. For, while the American public fancies itself bipartisan, it remains deeply partisan.

Bipartisanship has an iconic place in U.S. history.

In his farewell address upon leaving the presidency, George Washington warned his fellow Americans against partisanship in domestic politics and called on them to serve the common good.

Today, many Americans apparently truly believe that bipartisan government would be the best government.

Just as the presidential campaign was getting under way last year, more than half of Democrats and more than three-quarters of independent voters said they wanted a candidate for president who could bridge partisan divides, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg national survey conducted June 7-10, among 1,183 adults. The survey had a 3-point error margin.

This desire for a leader who can rise above the political fray is undoubtedly a reassuring self-image for Americans at a time of widespread public pessimism about the future, deep regrets about past political choices and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and a troubling realization of the profound anti-Americanism around the world.

And, in the face of a looming recession, both Democrats and Republicans do agree that efforts to strengthen the economy should be a priority, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of 1,515 adults. The survey was conducted Jan. 9-13 and has a 3-point error margin.

Just a year ago there was a 12-point partisan divide on this issue. And, Americans have narrowed their differences -- from a 19-point gap in 2007 to a 6-point gap -- on the importance of dealing with energy problems.

But scratch a little deeper and voters are even more divided than ever about specific economic challenges.

Amid lagging job creation over the last few months, Democrats apparently feel the pain more than Republicans. Last year's 28-point-difference between Democrats and Republicans on the importance of improving the job situation has grown to 33 points, with Democrats showing more anxiety about unemployment.

Similarly, the 19-point partisan gap in dealing with problems of the poor and the needy has grown to 27 points, with Democrats again more concerned than the GOP.

On other hot button issues there is similar disagreement. Democrats have long worried more than Republicans about providing health insurance for the uninsured. But that partisan difference is 38 points, up from 28 points in 2007.

The GOP has always accorded less importance to dealing with global warming. But now, despite all the recent evidence that the climate might be changing, partisan differences over whether this should be a national priority have grown from 25 points to 35 points.

Much of this deepening partisanship on specific issues must be laid at the doorstep of GOP voters, who not only have growing differences with Democrats, but also have parted ways with independents, according to the Pew data.

On giving priority to the problems of the poor, the gap between Democrats' attitudes and independents' views has shrunk from 21 points to 10 points in the last year.

Meanwhile, the difference between GOP sentiments and those of independents has actually grown from 2 points to 17 points. Similarly, on health care, the gap between views held by Democrats and independents has shrunk from 18 points in 2007 to 7 points today.

At the same time, the difference between attitudes of Republicans and independents has grown from 8 points to 31 points.

Finally, on giving priority to dealing with global warming, the differences between Democrats and independents remain largely unchanged since last year. But the gap between Republicans and independents has grown from 17 points to 26 points.

The public's support for bipartisanship clearly exists in the abstract.

And, undoubtedly, this avowed willingness to put the good of the country before personal political concerns makes voters feel good about themselves. But that self-image is delusional. Americans remain sharply divided about the nation's major economic challenges, let alone what to do about them. They are bipartisan in theory, but partisan in practice. By Bruce Stokes

Comments

[rojansky]

Shearer is right that in the past few years, “such matters as the Iraq War and the conduct of the War on Terror” have broken the bipartisan center. Polls accordingly reflect deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans on those issues. That’s the bad news. The good news is there are still a host of crucial national security issues on which Americans can and do agree. The Partnership for a Secure America recently launched the Secure America Challenge to highlight five of the most important areas of bipartisan agreement, and challenge the next president to take up this agenda. The Secure America Challenge is also an invaluable offer of bipartisan support to the next President, whichever party wins the White House in November.

[vbond]

"The public's support for bipartisanship clearly exists in the abstract.
And, undoubtedly, this avowed willingness to put the good of the country before personal political concerns makes voters feel good about themselves. But that self-image is delusional. Americans remain sharply divided about the nation's major economic challenges, let alone what to do about them. They are bipartisan in theory, but partisan in practice."

Please forgive the grim metaphor, but in a medical context this post is like describing in compelling detail the nature of a dread disease, then concluding, because the description is so accurate, that a cure is impossible.

True, some would say that rabid partisanship is not a disease at all, but rather a governor on the excesses of either side.

The problem is that we are facing crises for which centrist, even triangulated - government just won't do.

Not just the war in Iraq, but its aftermath, is one of those problems.

The raging AND looming (it's not nearly as bad as it can be) fiscal crisis and its impact on essential services is another.

And of course the biggest crisis of all - climate change - which challenges a vast raft of entitlements and expectations about life in America.

These and many other problems like them can only be solved by actually curing - or at least mitigating - the chronic disease of dysfunctional partisanship.

Just because we've diagnosed it... just because we're used to it...

Doesn't mean it won't kill us.

Is there a doctor in the house?

[RichLiberal]

People need to understand the Republican agenda in order to determine whether bipartisanship is possible. The Republican agenda consists of only one thing: "make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful". To make this more clear: it is not about money, per se, it is about setting up an aristocracy in this country: a class of citizen who is not accountable to society in the way ordinary citizens are. How large will this group be? Probably 0.1-1.0% plus their subservient enforcers of various types.
That aside, how can they have this agenda and get votes at the same time? Well, they have to lie. So who are the Republicans that vote for this? It is any collection of nuts they can find who are so blinded by their own narrow-minded agenda that they are clueless what the core Republicans are actually about. And who are the Republican Congressmen and Senators? Why anyone who will promote this agenda.

So, once you know that, maybe then you can decide how much you want Obama compromising away your values and rights to these people.

[LyricalLexicon]

I'm glad that Obama is for bipartisanship but is Congress for it? Will those conservative Republican senators suddenly hold hands with Obama (and be seen as a traitor) and start solving our problems? I seriously doubt it, I hope Obama would be able to get this done but I think he will be in for a rude awakening when he gets to the White House. No, I'm not a Hillary supporter, I voted for Edwards.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Those republican senators will when a good portion of their constituents voted for President Obama.

When President Obama uses his position to motivate the entire country toward common sense, progressive changes the republicans in Congress won't have a choice. Neither will the centrists DLC democrats.

That's what a governing majority is all about. Just ask Reagan and FDR what the power of a governing majority can bring. Decades of prosperity or decades of despair.

I, for one, am seriously relieved that Obama decided to run, because we can't handle even one more year of partisan gridlock in Congress.

[olephart]

Bipartisanship with a group of War criminals and economic rapists? The biggest problem with the Democratic Party today is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their total lack of anything resembling balls. What the Republicans need more than anything is to be beaten unmercifully and tossed on the trash heap of History. They are the single most corrupt and heinous organization in the World today. Their mindless supporters resemble the passengers on the Titanic cheering the icebergs. The Democrats of Pelosi and Reid are useless or as John Nance Garner put it "not worth a bucket of warm piss". Hillary panders in the middle taking portions from each side. Unfortunately, she only takes the worst that each has to offer. Warmongering and Corporate profiteering from the right and mindless spending fix alls that have proven to be ineffective from the left. If you choose the center you should at least take from FDR and Everett Dirksen not George W. Bush and Walter Mondale.

[BillZBubb]

As usual the Clinton haters miss the whole message and still drink the Obamist Kool-Aid. Obama's vision for working with the right sounds wonderful, but it won't happen. The right doesn't do nuance or compromise. Until there is a radical readjustment in conservative practice, bipartisanship is gone. That readjustment won't happen until 70% of the American public totally rejects them--and we are nowhere near that yet.

Just today, when that paragon of Republican virtue, Willard "Mitt" Romney dropped out of the right wing race, he based his decision (to paraphrase) to keep America safe from the terrorist loving Democrats Clinton and Obama. That's only a taste of what any Democrat can expect in the future.

The Obamists are in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be a painful lesson.

[jmpurser]

Well this primary cycle we only get to choose between the candidate that would compromise with the republicans and the candidate that will BE a republican.
Going to be some rude awakenings all over town I think.

[jstock]

I believe Obama will have more of a coattails effect, thus bringing more and better Dems into the House and the Senate. This will lessen the need for bipartisanship with the very evil Republicans. I went to a Hillary rally tonight, and was bored to distraction. Not that I disagreed with most of what she said, and I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but the thought of listening to that for 8 years...

[desmirl]

You're right. Bipartisanship is a fading memory reaching back to the times of Eisenhower and Kennedy--times when those on the right were open to discussion. Now, those on the right are 'True Believers' so committed to the 'rightness' of their beliefs that for them to give even a silly millimeter shatters the entire bedrock foundations of their worldview.

[JasonEverettMiller]

23 percent of the right and 23 percent of the left are not ever going to compromise.

That leaves the VAST majority of us smack in the true center. A center that embodies progressive changes via compromise and sacrifice.

Just because the vocal minorities have been running things since 1980 doesn't mean we have to accept that status quo. We CAN change things this year.

[JimR]

Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get bills passed.

Clinton worked with a Republican Congress to balance the budget.

More recently, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have joined together to try to save a funding increase for SCHIP, and to pass an economic stimulus bill.

Just because you choose not to recognize bipartisanship doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[mpkirby]

There is a big difference between being a bipartisan leader, and being the leader of only a small part of society.

President Bush has demonstrated that he feels allegiance to only 30% of the electorate. His policies reflect that.

I want a president that promotes his ideals and his partisanship. But at the same time I want a president who believes that he is leading a country of 300 million people. Where as many people may disagree with him as agree with him.

The difference between a representative and a leader is that a representative can callously ignore the needs of those who don't vote him (or her) into office.

A leader needs to recognize the differing needs, and seek (but not always achieve) to bridge the gaps between them.

For example:

A president that executes all the laws passed by congress, not just those consistent with his political ideology.

A president that respects precedence, international obligations and institutions, even if he (or she) doesn't agree with them.

A president that respectfully disagrees with his opponents. Perhaps reaching out on issues of less importance to achieve victories on partisan issues of more importance.

A bi-partisan president isn't one that always "Triangulates" his way to victory. But one that recognizes his responsibility to all citizens, not just those who voted him into office.

Mike

[reedmaker]

Mike, I 100% agree with what you are saying, but I assume you realize you are using the male pronoun throughout? I think your description of a good leader applies to both Dem. candidates.

[Ides]

Bipartisanship is a joke. We need everybody switching parties. Now THAT's what I call unity.

[Countess]

This is depressing beyond belief and so in keeping with Mrs. Clinton's followers complete lack of imagination. You cannot seriously think that independent voters will just accept anyone to vote democratic. You are dead wrong! They deserve and expect an honest and sincere candidate working for the common good. Mrs. Clinton fails this test.

[jc6580]

Lack of imagination, Countess? Please...H­illary is being as honest as Obama, if not more so. She's not setting herself up for failure right away, as Obama does. Don't get me wrong - I like the guy and all, but I don't think he has much substance when he talks. It's just a little too good to be true.
I support Hillary because she has reasoned, well-thought out plans that can work. She works across the aisle and knows when she needs to stand her ground. I don't wrap her in Bill's shadow - I consider her for her work alone.
So I dare say Hillary is an honest and sincere candidate who cares deeply about the people of this country. If you've heard her speak - and I've heard them both - you'd understand just how much she cares.

[JimR]

You can't just go by a candidate's speeches. All candidates gives speeches to rally voters, not regale them with the finer details of their policy proposals.

If you visit Obama's Web site, you will find a lot of specific plans and proposals on a wide variety of issues.

I support Obama because he stands a much better chance than Hillary of actually enacting those plans if he is elected.

[liveandlearn]

actually, she passes it with flying colors.

[readerK]

Your Highness the Countess: By what kind of test did you conclude that Hillary lacks honesty and sincerity? readerK.