"Post-Partisanship": How It Works, How It Doesn't

Then President-elect Barack Obama, delivering his victory speech, stressed post-partisan themes.

Back in 2007, when he was still an underdog candidate for president jousting with John Edwards (remember him?), Barack Obama said that he liked the "post-partisan" posturings of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the idea that people should set aside their partisan differences to solve big issues. Now, as president, he's adopted much the same tack, to the dismay of hyper-partisans of all stripes.

They ought to be dismayed, because it works. To a point.

But not in a linear sense.

Let's take a look at how it went in California, and how it may go in Washington.

Schwarzenegger was coming off of a total disaster in 2005, his so-called "Year of Reform" in which all four of his special election initiatives, alternately badly drafted or just too conservative for California, went down to defeat. In 2006, running for re-election with a new team -- including campaign manager Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain's much more conservative campaign last fall -- Schwarzenegger went back to the centrist positioning that got him elected in the first place in the dramatic California recall election of 2003. He had early in his term formed a post-partisan partnership on some issues with then state Controller Steve Westly, later one of Obama's earliest and biggest backers. But that fell by the wayside in 2005.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California's big climate change program into law, in this New West Notes video.

He pushed two big things he had talked about with me and others before he ever ran for governor in 2002 and 2003: A big infrastructure package and a big program to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of making enemies of Democratic legislative leaders like then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and state Senate leader Don Perata, he formed a partnership with them.

And it worked. The big programs passed, the public loved the new air of cooperation in the state capital of Sacramento, and Schwarzenegger won a second landslide election to the governorship.

Of course, only a few Republicans went along with the bipartisan game. The big infrastructure package, which won big at the polls in November 2006 along with Schwarzenegger, received only a few votes from Republican legislators. The big climate change program, also very popular, garnered only one Republican vote.

After Schwarzegger was re-elected, polls showed that the public loved the idea of what Schwarzenegger began to call "post-partisanship," and was optimistic that the new spirit would lead to more constructive changes in state government.

Schwarzenegger kept up the positive rhetoric, which most Republican voters liked, but the reality was that there were precious few moderate Republicans to be found in the Legislature. Partisan gerrymandering, in which the legislative parties essentially draw their members' districts, and the domination of Republican politics in California by professional conservatives concentrates the power of the far right in the party, yet in a declining number of districts. So it's no surprise that, aside from Schwarzenegger, almost all California Republicans are far too conservative to win a statewide election. (Schwarzenegger, incidentally, finally succeeded in passing a redistricting reform initiative last November, but it won't go into effect until the next Census.)

This wasn't a problem for Schwarzenegger's post-partisanship on most issues, because they didn't require Republican votes in a Legislature with big Democratic majorities in both houses.

It has proved to be a problem on the state budget, chronically balanced only with borrowing and sleight of hand after the Legislature took on unsustainable spending commitments and tax cuts during the dot-com boom and Schwarzenegger's subsequent cutting of the car tax, now wildly out of balance with the advent of the economic crisis.

California is one of only three states, and the only major state, to require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to pass a budget or raise taxes. The far right faction that controls the Republican Party has blocked passage of a budget with needed new revenues for months. So every day in California politics has become Groundhog Day.

Schwarzenegger remained popular through 2007 as he unsuccessfully pursued a comprehensive health care reform program for California, working with some unions and businesses, even though no Republican legislator ended up supporting it. He might have gotten some Republican support for lesser parts of the package, but kept pushing for the whole enchilada.

His popularity began fading after that, then went down with the Groundhog Day budget situation that developed last year and the tanking of the economy.

Obama actually has a better situation because he has strong majorities with his own party and doesn't need a two-thirds vote to get anything done.

But the reality is that the national Republican Party now mirrors the California Republican Party. It's a minority party busy digging its own minority hole.

President Barack Obama called out conservative Republican opponents of his economic recovery program.

It's no real surprise that few Republicans in Congress are backing Obama's big economic revival program. It's a very conservative group of people.

Especially so after the last two elections. In 2006 and 2008, the Republicans lost a whopping 52 seats in the House of Representatives and 14 seats in the Senate.

This is a party that is burning down to the waterline, its leaders waving a tattered standard of conservatism. That's especially so in the House, where members represent gerrymandered districts.

In the Senate, there are still a few relatively moderate Republicans, who after all have to represent the broader interests of entire states.

Schwarzenegger hasn't had that in California, having to get votes from Republicans who only represent safe legislative districts.

So Obama will have a few Republican partners, at least on a situational basis, in the Senate. Where he will need them on occasion, due to the possibility of filibuster in the Senate, which does not exist in the House.

Then President-elect Barack Obama delivered this video address to a bipartisan global climate summit organized by Schwarzenegger.

He'll have some Republican partners amongst the nation's governors as well.

Schwarzenegger and Florida's Charlie Crist led a group of Republican governors who signed a letter last week backing Obama's economic recovery program. And Crist actually appeared with Obama at his town hall meeting in Florida on

But the reality is that post-partisanship will be what Obama says it is -- some big issues that are widely popular -- so long as he can get some of those Republicans to go along when he needs them.

As long as Obama maintains his post-partisan positioning, he further marginalizes the conservative Republicans in Congress who would never be for him or anything major that he proposes anyway. Except in the event of an extraterrestrial invasion of the Earth, that is. And even then, I'm not so sure.

You can check things out during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

Like one of Pavlov's dogs....whenever I hear the term bi-partisan or post-partisan I brace for the sound of loyal constituencies being tossed under the bus in order to suck up to implacable enemies.

The idea that such posturing is necessecary in order to woo "moderate Republicans" doesn't pass the laugh test.
When the likes of Arlen Specter defines the extreme Left wing of the Republican party...it is clear that political expeditions in search of Republican "moderates" will be exactly as sucessful (and serve the same purpose) as the "snipe hunts" we went on in the boy scouts.

No snipes were ever found , for the excellent reason that, like a "moderate Republican" at the federal elective level......THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

tm

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You know, I'm at dinner amused by this.

You said it, you're like Pavlov's dog.

Not paying any attention to what I actually said.

Have a good evening ...

[TommyMcCarthy]

Thanks for your response
tm

[HR44]

I agree with the overall tone of this, and would add that it will hold particularly true for as long as the House GOPers who get the most face time (Cantor in particular) convey a message of contentiousness for the sake of contentiousness.

"But the reality is that post-partisanship will be what Obama says it is"

Up to a point I agree. Obama has moved a good bit America away from a feeling of cynicism about politics. However, along with the trust he has engendered comes a higher standard. He has to be particularly careful that when he speaks to the people that he is always honest both in what the letter of what he says and the spirit of what he says. In the press conference Monday night the comment that there "no pet projects" in this bill. The letter of that was true, there were no earmarks. The spirit was less rigorously honest. He can pass that sort of disconnect onto Speaker Pelosi and the House Dems this time, but in the future such semantic games could cost him post-partisan credit with the voters.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks. It's wise politics for Obama to rhetorically rise above the Republican hyper-partisans rather than mirror their behavior.

[RLewis]

I can't see where "post-partisanship" is building momentum. And it has made Obama look really bad this week. I say double-down on it. If Obama really wants to make it work, he must take up something that the conservatives in our country want to see passed. If he shows that it's not all about only my "p-p" and gives up something to the other side, then it might have a chance to grow in the future.

[BottomLine2008]

That's the partisan line ...

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

That's short-term thinking which forgets this little thing called ... the voters.

Also, post-partisan is not bipartisan.

[RLewis]

Dude, it can't always be that things are okay as long as you believe what I believe in. That's the same gridlock we all, both left and right, are damn tired of. At some point you have to do something to give the other side a reason to compromise. Get out of the box. It's very longterm thinking if you co-op the other side's positions. It wins votes - look at how Obama's reaching across lines has upped his poll numbers. You need a bigger picture.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

"As long as Obama maintains his post-partisan positioning, he further marginalizes the conservative Republicans in Congress who would never be for him or anything major that he proposes anyway. Except in the event of an extraterrestrial invasion of the Earth, that is. And even then, I'm not so sure."

Nah, if aliens invaded earth--

Rush Limbaugh would say it was because Obama stopped warrantless wiretaps, closed Gitmo, and pulled our troops out of Iraq.

Washington Republicans wouldn't vote for an extraterrestrial military force until Obama agreed to tax cuts for the rich.

[BottomLine2008]

ROTFL

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

No, they would say that Obama needs to declare a co-presidency with Rush Limbaugh to ensure that proper Americanism is maintained for the fight.

[IndependentTogether]

No, you're both wrong. They would claim that Obama is the leader of those extraterrestrial invaders; he infiltrated our government and has been making preparations and laying in wait for the full invasion. "Obama is perfect... TOO perfect... he MUST be a Trojan Horse..."

[mortrefuge]

The difference being that in the Senate the Democrats could, if they want, abolish the filibuster. In California it is written into law by proposition 13. This needs to be thrown out in the courts. 66% of anything is virtually impossible. Even 60 is almost impossible. I say 55% should be the new rule for California and the US Senate.

[BottomLine2008]

Thrown out by the courts? It's been in the California Constitution for many years.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You make it all sound pretty easy. Is it really true that all it takes is a majority of the Senate to change the supermajority rule on cloture?

There has already been in this decade one failed initiative attempting to change the California Constitution on the two-thirds vote requirement.

[mommadona]

When does sedition kick in with this process?

I think it's past time in California.

Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

*quack*quack!

[BottomLine2008]

What does this mean?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for sharing.

[BottomLine2008]

Good speech by Obama to Schwarzenegger's climate change conference.

I could see those two working together after Arnold's done being governor of California.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

True, although I don't know that I see Schwarzenegger working for someone else, even a President Obama.

[BottomLine2008]

Obama did what he needed to do in that Williamsburg speech calling out the conservatives.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

That's right. Being post-partisan doesn't mean that you don't call out hyper-partisan opponents.

[BottomLine2008]

The Schwarzenegger climate change bill signing was a pretty impressive event, bipartisan and trans-Atlantic.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

With Tony Blair beaming in from England on the jumbotron ...

[BottomLine2008]

Obama's victory speech was really great.

[BottomLine2008]

Very interesting. It sounds like smart political PR.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It is. Something that eludes many on the left.

[IndependentTogether]

And it drives me NUTS that supposedly smart people such as Rachael Maddow doesn't get it...