Putting Policy over Politics

Congress' failure to pass the $700 billion rescue plan will likely go down in history as a moment of destructive partisanship during a time when unity and cooperation were most needed.

Last week's deliberations over the bailout package suggested that congressional leaders would be able to put ideological differences aside and deal with the financial crisis pragmatically. There was hope that Congress' increasingly bipartisan rhetoric -- as well as McCain and Obama's collaboration on this issue -- might be a portent of a changed Washington, where sensible solutions take precedence over politics. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

In order to deal with the problems that will face the nation in coming years, a President Obama or President McCain will have to create the bipartisan spirit that has been missing in Washington. And, despite the shameful divisiveness surrounding the bailout fiasco, there is reason to be optimistic.

Sen. McCain has stated that he'd consider nominating a Democrat to serve as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sen. Obama has announced that he'd work closely with Secretary Paulson to ensure an orderly transition, if elected.

Such bipartisan consensus is encouraging. The country needs a similar approach to other vexing issues.

Take energy, for example. With gas prices still hovering around four bucks a gallon, it's clear that the American consumer needs some relief. A bipartisan group of senators -- the so-called "Gang of 20" -- appeared set to advance legislation that would have combined responsible offshore oil drilling with the closure of some tax loopholes for oil companies.

Unfortunately, election-year politics seem to have gotten in the way, as the proposal has been shelved. Voters should let lawmakers know that they won't stand for punting of this sort. Action is urgently needed.

In contrast to the impasse over energy, we may be seeing some compromise on an important healthcare issue -- prescription drug importation.

Although Sens. Obama and McCain are on record as supporters of drug importation, it emerged this month that the candidates are re-considering the issue. Both candidates, it seems, saw the threat that imported meds pose earlier this year when contaminated heparin from China killed almost 100 people.

Despite the shift, neither candidate has attacked the other. That's good news for voters, as safety must be a primary concern of politicians.

It remains to be seen if these examples of bipartisan unity will become the rule in Washington. But if they don't, the consequences for the major parties could be dire.

After all, Americans have proven that they're not afraid to migrate to third parties when their dissatisfaction reaches high levels. For evidence, one need only look to 1980, when John Anderson reached 24 percent in opinion polls before the election. Or take 1992, when Ross Perot captured nearly 19 percent of the vote. Polls suggest that more than half of registered voters would either vote for a third-party candidate or welcome a major third-party presence.

Given the remarkable unpopularity of all branches of government, Democrats and Republicans clearly have a choice: They can either engage in the partisanship that has soured voters or work together to seek commonsense solutions that resonate with all Americans.

The recent effort to repair the country's ailing financial system was a perfect opportunity to make historic progress is ending the vicious partisanship that has characterized Washington for decades. Voters can only hope that McCain and Obama will learn from this week's failure.

Douglas E. Schoen was a campaign consultant for more than 30 years and is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Comments

[burndtdan]

I have a different take of this whole ordeal. The vote didn't really break down on partisan lines so much as it broke down on another metric.

It broke down between the people who felt something needed to be done quickly, and the people who felt something needed to be done right. Now, I'm not going to fault either side for their beliefs... obviously, both have a point.

The fact of the matter is, most economists view the Paulson plan as mediocre at best.

That's why I hope they don't just try to resolve the issue with partisan thinking. Don't move to the right or the left, don't try to win over the Republicans or hedge them out and just please the Democrats. Rather, just consider other approaches, and get to it quickly.

[PtaRay]

I have a dumb question,
since the Tax payers really are the ones who filled the treasury with their tax base money, why cant the government give the American tax payers what they need to pay down their own debt, rather than give it to the companies who appeared to steal if from them?? (and it is a national perception at this point)

I would imagine it would be cheaper to give it to the people and see it get pushed back into the system and then in turn back to the holding companies, rather than as a chunk that just gets to bypass the consumerism chain completely??

if Americans got a windfall, or a "stimulus" check (taxable??) that was actually worthwhile instead of the pitiful tiny drop in the bucket we did get, they would be out in the market spending it, and juicing up this nations economy again..... not to mention it would look really good for the government, if you are gonna bail someone out, make it the people....... not the CEO's

[burndtdan]

That's a good point. If the problem is mortgage backed securities faultering because mortgages can't be paid...

Buy up the securities, and you capitalize the financial markets but the masses still are in a housing crisis.

Pay off the mortgages, and you capitalize the financial markets (by putting the actual value back behind the securities) and solve the housing crisis.

Obviously, this wouldn't resolve the whole problem, and shouldn't be the only thing done, but what we need is a different approach to the problem.

[milo h minderbinder]

The problem is that giving people money to pay mortgages would be way more expensive than the proposed plan.