Bipartisanship is Overrated

President Barack Obama outsmarted Senator Judd Gregg and the Republicans by shifting the responsibility for the 2010 census from the Commerce Department to the White House. After realizing he would not be able to game the census for the political benefit of the GOP Gregg decided to pull the plug on his outpouring of "bipartisanship" and drop out as Obama's Commerce Secretary. Some corporate media pundits spun Gregg's action as being somehow evidence of an Obama failure. "Why can't Obama keep his cabinet together?" asked Chris Matthews. With "burrowed" Bushite career employees in all the departments and agencies of government and with prominent Republicans mounting a full-court press on Obama's legislative agenda I fail to see why the actions of Judd Gregg have so captured the media's imagination.

And nowhere have I heard any pundit mention the fact that some of the worst policies the United States government has enacted over the past forty years have been "bipartisan."

For example:

On August 10, 1964, Congress passed by a vote of 416 to 0 in the House and 88 to 2 in the Senate the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." It was a stunning show of "bipartisanship" giving President Lyndon Johnson carte blanche to take the country to war in Vietnam. The war cost the nation about $900 billion and after it was over the only thing the U.S. had to show for it was fifty-eight thousand dead Americans, over two million dead Vietnamese, and a bitterly divided and polarized nation.

On October 15, 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that lifted most of the restrictions on the savings-and-loan industry. "All in all," the president said, "I think we hit the jackpot." The bipartisan bill allowed thrifts to jump into huge, high-risk real estate ventures and to compete with money market funds. Bolstered by federal guarantees they were now "too big to fail" and the ensuing corruption and criminality was so widespread that George W. Bush's younger brother, Neil Bush, and Arizona Senator John McCain were caught up in scandals relating to failed S & Ls. It was another "bipartisan" disaster that cost American taxpayers $160 billion.

On November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. This ingenious piece of "bipartisan" legislation that Wall Street spent millions on lobbying to get passed and Larry Summers and Robert Rubin supported, dismantled much of the New Deal regulatory apparatus that separated the FDIC-insured commercial bank deposits from the more risk-taking investment banks. It created a new consolidated system of "financial services" where brokerage firms, insurance companies, banks and other forms of organization of capital intermingled at will. This "bipartisan" deregulation scheme ultimately brought down the nation's financial system after the unregulated derivatives and mortgage-backed securities markets collapsed under the weight of fraud, abuse, corruption, and general recklessness.

On June 7, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. This "bipartisan" legislation quickly drained $1.6 trillion from the federal treasury and bestowed the biggest benefits on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. It turned a budget surplus into budget deficits as far as the eye can see and was the opening salvo of one of the most fiscally destructive periods in American history.

On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives in a show of "bipartisanship" voted 296 to 133 to pass the Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, and the Senate followed with its own "bipartisan" vote of 77 to 23. Demonstrating their "bipartisanship" by voting for the measure was Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards. This act has resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,300 Americans. It has cost American taxpayers about $850 billion so far and our leaders thought it wise to throw all the costs of the war onto the national debt. This illegal war and occupation has "won" nothing for the United States other than the opprobrium of the world and a severely weakened the military.

All told, these "bipartisan" wars and twisted economic schemes have so far cost the nation at least $5.2 trillion. So forgive me if I don't get excited when I hear the word "bipartisan" thrown around as if it possesses some kind of magic value. And I'm not too concerned about Judd Gregg's decision to pick up his marbles are go home.

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey Everyone! Thank you for your comments and links -- good to hear from all of you -- I don't ever remember hearing Obama utter the term "post-partisan" yet the media repeats it over and over and see it somehow as Obama's failure that Boehner and the boys won't play ball -- I think in 2010 the Obama people will realize that his presidency depends on being in a 24/7 permanent campaign and he'll just go with it -- I would spend tons of money and appear readily in the swing districts and states and try to defeat some of these people in the midterms -- I would look at FDR in '34 and '36 the Democratic majorities became so huge that they didn't need to pander to those people -- Hoover was still running around denouncing the New Deal in the late 1930s -- I think one of the comments is correct: What accomplishment can the Republicans point to in the last 30 years that didn't rob the middle class and benefit ultimately the rich the powerful the corporate and the white and the male?

[deal-with-it]

"Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

What whining Republocrat said this as he complained about the Demicans and the stimulus? Boehner? Cantor? McCain?

No. "Bipartisan" Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope, in 2006. So I guess he did put some importance to it, at least before he got elected.

h/t Bill McGurn of The Wall Street Journal

[Nonpartay]

It is interesting that President Carter tonight said on Countdown that Republicans are like robots and all have to vote the way their leaders tell them to, so I think it'll be a long time before any significant number of them break ranks and support any Democratic bills. Might as well go for it then since the Democrats won and were given the majority's permission to do what they think is best for the country. This article was a good reminder that sometimes a compromise bill that appeals to both sides at once may not be good and in fact may actually cause a great deal of harm. I still think it's good that President Obama tries to be friends with those on the other side. It may go a long way towards promoting civility even if they don't change their minds on policy. Well, I can dream, can't I?

[Jezreel]

["After realizing he would not be able to game the census for the political benefit of the GOP Gregg decided to pull the plug on his outpouring of "bipartisanship" and drop out as Obama's Commerce Secretary."]

I couldn't agree more.

"So forgive me if I don't get excited when I hear the word "bipartisan" thrown around as if it possesses some kind of magic value."

I second that emotion.

Excellent article and thank you Mr. Palermo for the history lesson.

[deal-with-it]

Bipartisanship IS overrated. Thanks to BIPARTISAN support for CRA, ECOA, Fair Lending, and, yes, securitization of mortgages and forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy bad loans over the years, we have the financial crisis that is tearing our economy apart.
For example, Dubya crowing in 2004 and 2005 over unqualified minorities' record homeownership rates (before the subprime bomb went off and they all lost their homes) is as bad Andrew Cuomo's strong-arming of the banks to lower lending standards for unqualified minorities in the Clinton years.
Those who believe that this mess is the fault only of either the Demicans or the Republocrats are just party hacks. The groupthink in certain circles of the intellectual class that only the Republocrats are responsible is ignorance that would be laughable were the situation not so serious. If you can't even understand how we got into this mess because you are blinded by party or ideological loyalty, than how do you expect to know the way out?
Be independent. Be cynical. Be skeptical. Be independent.

[jackbutler5555]

Bipartisanship can not exist. The two parties run against each every two, four, and six years. Legislative compromise exists and that can be good or bad. Then there's the legislature's support of wars, and tax breaks for the rich, etc -- so ably chronicled in this article. Those are bad decisions usually derived from a fear of the electorate. The wrong side got the support of the populace and the right side were frightened by the likelihood of electoral retribution.

[OhReallySheSaid]

Here's the litmus test Barrack the Good needs to use: Just ask the GOP to name one bill in the last eight years that actually benefited (instead of destroying) the middle class, that raised middle class incomes, and/or created a job that wasn't at Taco Bell. When they show that they're no longer interested in destroying the middle class and rewarding the upper class with endless perks, then we'll work with them. The GOP doesn't like the President, doesn't like you, and certainly doesn't like me. And it certainly is not in the interest of their party to see us succeed. There are plenty of successful businessmen on our side that would make an excellent Secretary of Commerce. This Gregg guy was a trojan horse sent in by the GOP in an orchestrated campaign to discredit and embarrass us, and it's time to shut them down.

[S1m0n]

It's a heads-up play whether or not it pans out. Just as in his primary battle with Hillary, Obama is adept at playing the long game while his opposition thinks its winning at the short game.

The available votes in any US election are in the middle, and the candidate who captures the biggest share is the one who moves into the White House.

So if Obama makes a conspicuous display of trying to bridge the middle, he's laying a trap: either he gets his bill passed, or he demonstrates to the swing voters that he's their man and the GOP isn't; that he is ready to meet the republicans half way (not coincidentally where the swing voters park their hats) but they're still brimfull of sour old ideology and bile.

Which leaves the GOP high and dry come the mid terms.

[Jeany]

I concur wholeheartedly; we have to have the ideological debate, and it has to rise above the din of mindless partisan rancor. The Republicans have nothing but glib recitation of shibboleth-based talking points. We have the better argument, we have history on our side, and we can't shrink from the task.

[ObamacratInCA]

The alternative to bipartisanship is to be a lockstep army of zombies that votes on ideological lines regardless of facts.

We had that for 8 years. I humbly submit, that sucked.

[sammy cole]

Not so, the last 8 years many Dems voted for all we're dissing today. Maybe Partisonship is EXACTLY what we need for a while.

[lisabanks]

Thank you so much for this article. At least three times this week someone in the news mentioned that bipartianship legislation is always the best legislation. These type of talking points don't usually get addressed for its inaccuracy. Thanks again for this article.

[AnRoistac]

Well done. The next hurdle is, and I'm not the first to say it, for the Democrats to find a spine. With the exception of those the MSM likes to put on the "fringe," no Dems seem to be willing to stand up for their beliefs, assuming that they believe in something beyond their own reelection. They are, therefore, putty in the hands of the Republicans who, supported by the supposedly liberal media, define bipartisanship as, "be reasonable; do it my way."

It's also interesting that two of the five disastrous examples Mr. Palermo gave were of war resolutions.
How many politicians in our history have had the courage to stand up against a war before it became unpopular. Abraham Lincoln springs to mind, and I seem to remember that two, count them, two Senators voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

[Nonpartay]

Don't forget President Obama standing against the Iraq war in 2002. Good job! Too bad there weren't more of him.

[Nova16]

The Democrats were slapped in the face, kicked in the pants during the misguided reign of Bush/Cheney. The reason the republicans, even though in the minority , appear to be successful at roadblocking is that they do it from an ideological base that rules out any attempt at common sense. They have done well because they employ bullying tactics to reduce the Democrats to insipid, sniveling weaklings even with control of all three levels of government and the support of 70% of Americans. I don't believe that bipartisanship is a proper strategy. It only makes one appear to be weak in the face of competition and the republicans will always win that battle. Obama needs a new strategy based on bargaining from a position of strength.

[Butai]

bipartisanship is a joke! that is why we have elections. That is why we have parties. That is why we have a democracy! this bipartisanship crap is an invention of the elite class in washington because all the lobbists, politicians and Media pundits, journalists, etc all live there, are all upper class, all have their kids in the same private schools so they share the basic same ideology. Thus their thirst for bipartisanship. I live in america not the beltway and let me tell you I do not like the republicans, I do not agree with the republicans. i voted against their policies, and when it is our turn to rule it should be our ideas and policies that should be implemented. When the GOP rules they do just that. What is it with the left????!!!!

[JohnFromCensornati]

I agree whole-heartedly. This bi-partisa­n/post-par­tisan fantasy needs to end quickly. The GOP and their policies have been ruinous. We don't need their input. We need to turn away from their "ideas".
My belief is that most of the "independents" that object to partisan bickering are really just Republicans that are too ashamed to identify as such.
I wish we had a multi-party system where collaboration was essential, but we don't. We have a two-party adversarial system and it doesn't even make sense to expect that they will work together. They want to displace each other.

[Nonpartay]

Don't be too sure about those independents. I'm one, and I assure you, I am no Republican. I would love to see everyone getting along and working things out, but as you say, it just doesn't seem like it can with the system the way it is. Not being of either party, it is interesting to see things from the outside. I must say, even if Democrats seem to cave in and lose their spine sometimes, they still seem a lot nicer and more caring about what happens to the people of America. That's what's important to me, to support the ones who have the best character and the best ideas, imho. I have voted for some Republicans in the past, as well as some others of other parties. But I have to say most of the time I vote for Democrats, and this time I was completely blown away by the Democratic candidate. I still am. Did you see his speech in Springfield? He is so inspiring! :)

[johnie2xs]

["After realizing he would not be able to game the census for the political benefit of the GOP Gregg decided to pull the plug on his outpouring of "bipartisanship" and drop out as Obama's Commerce Secretary."]

This is why I read you, 'mon frere'. Your supple and fact drenched historical mind, is a wonder. I had no clear idea as to what Judd may have had in mind, but your view on this fits very well. As Bob Cesca, has said in his most recent posting, "President Obama is Driving the Republicans Insane", the flailing of the Rethugs is becoming a group therapy fom "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-obama-is-litera_b_166152.html
This would be just another example of that.

I, myself, am enjoying the "Rethuglican Revisionary Rantings" with great glee, as I commented on,in another posting;

["The Rethuglican Party in their effort to discredit all things Obama, is flailing so maniacally with their "Conservative Cat-o-Nine Tails" that it's smacking them in the back of their own combed over heads."]

I have to admit, though, that not having Obama's level of political acumen, makes me a bit apprehensive as to what is coming next, and how it will be received. These feelings, however, are greatly assuaged by the trust I have come to have in his thinking.

Thanks, Joey, for what you do towards making it understandable. Keep it up.