Over lunch I caught a bit of CNN. They were covering Obama’s visit to the Capitol to meet with Repub leaders in the House and Senate. From what I understand the Repub line is that the Dem bailout proposal has too much spending and not enough tax cuts. After Obama met with the House, one guy was complaining that the Dems have not done a bit of reaching out to Repubs in a bipartisan manner.
Got me thinking. What would it take to get bipartisan action on a matter of great importance, such as our response to the current economic situation? It seems to me that there has been very little bipartisanship through most of the past two presidents. What is the most recent significant legislation that truly reflected a bipartisan effort - where there were legitimate disputes between the parties as to what route to take?
Do the Repubs actually feel that ideologically tax cuts are the answer, or are they simply advocating what will appeal to their constituencies? Does that type of political capital outweigh any benefits they might derive from cooperation?
Full disclosure: My sympathies tend to lie with the Dems. I have a hard time thinking more tax cuts for business is what we need, as it seems that was a cornerstone of the past 8 years and didn’t seem to create a wonderful eonomy. As far as spending on infrastructure goes, I well imagine it may not turn the economy around, but afterwards at least we will have an improved infrastructure - instead of a bunch of even wealthier business owners. And to a large extent, it seems the party in power ought to have considerable say in setting the agenda. Thought it a good show by Obama to at least create the appearance of consulting with the Repubs. Wonder what sort of response, if any, he will receive.
I expect something on the order of a military invasion of the country would be necessary. Demonstrably, terrorist attacks aren’t enough; the Republicans saw that only as an opportunity to get their way.
Frankly, I don’t think you’ll see bipartisanship until the Democrats grow some spine and stop caving in and sucking up to the Republicans. Why should the Republicans compromise when they know they can browbeat the Democrats into giving in ?
Funny thing is, I can’t tell if that’s a joke, or meant as an accurate description of the Republicans ( as opposed to the Democrats, whom I’d label as “Somewhat less greedy and weak” ).
The problem is, there has been bipartisanship on important issues so that we could be seen to be Doing Something, and it’s not always the right decision but one made to placate the electorate.
For example, the lack of analysis of evidence in the runup to the Iraq war, or the creation of No Child Left Behind with no real lit review done to determine best practices, and not enough funding to actually implement its demands. And so on.
Bipartisanship in and of itself is not necessarily a desirable goal.
Good points. Tho I think in those instances the options were largely either going along with the majority party or fillibuster. May well be an aspect of our 2-party system. Few opportunities/needs for actual cooperation, meaningful input.
ISTR there have been some instances - like campaign reform - where both parties acted together. But those seem to involve them cleaning up their own house more than really advancing widespread social or economic policy.
Another problem with bipartisanship might be to water down the choices. Perhaps A would be clearly better than B. Or either A OR B would be better than a little bit of each.
So what do you think of Obama’s dog and pony show today? Is is just an act on his part? Is it a good idea? Should he just say, “Screw you, we have the majority. Go ahead and fillibuster.”
Why would anyone in a two-party state be bipartisan, ever? Either you disagree with your party or agree with it.
If you agree with it, then use its political advantages where you can to fight for the things you & your fellow partisans believe in.
If you disagree with your party, that doesn’t mean you don’t disagree with the other party more.
By trumpeting bipartisanship, Obama is telling me that he thinks the Republicans are no more vile & wrongheaded than the Democrats, & that Democrat wins mean sharing power with Republicans, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I VOTED FOR.
Not exactly.
NCLB, for example, was co-authored by a Dem, supported by Ted Kennedy, and really was seen by many in Washington as the thing to do to ‘fix the public school system’. Of course, that shows a bit of the folly of letting lawyers design educational policy, but I digress.
From what I understand of Obama from his time on Harvard’s law review he really does seem determined to serve as a moderating influence on both sides of the spectrum and to be interested in taking what he can use from and working with various dies of an issue.
Other than that, I can’t say I have formed much of an opinion. I’ll have to read up more.
It’s possible but not likely, this is due to the fact we have a two party system. With only two parties it pretty much ensures that whatever one party takes a stand on the issue the party not in power just gets left with the opposing viewpoint by default.
There’s no need for the Republicans to get on board with the Democratic agenda. If the bill passes and it works, there’s nothing the Republicans can or could do to claim credit. If the bill passes and it fails, the Republicans can fill the airwaves with their message of “of course it didn’t work!” In the mean time, they can grandstand and oppose aspects of the bill that will play well back home in their deep red states. “I stood against the Democratic Party’s wasteful spending!”
Why be bipartisan when there’s nothing but “win” by opposing it?
What are you talking about? The economy is in serious trouble, if the Republicans continue to throw ratchets into the gears there’ll be a lot less of them in 2 years. Any full system shock unites our two party system into action for a common goal. Whether it’s Black Tuesday, Pearl Harbor, Sputnik or 9/11 the junior party fails to cooperate at their peril.
It’s harder to grandstand on ideology when the party in question refuses any concessions point blank and their constituents increasingly become unemployed.
This is so early in the Congress that by the time the elections roll around in two years, any “grandstanding” they do now will likely be forgotten by the Democratic and Independent voters. It costs them very little to stand against the legislation knowing that it will pass despite their protests. However, they can use their protest as campaign material in two years. Really, other than a kumbaya moment, what reasons do they have to not make a stink?
I don’t agree with being opposed just for opposing’s sake, but I really don’t see much of a downside for them being opposed to the recovery bill. And heck, if they bray loudly enough (or would that be “trumpet” given that their icon is an elephant?), they may get some tokens added to the bill that will make their supporters happy, even if they still wind up voting it down.
There are countless things on which both parties are in agreement, e.g., murder should be considered a crime; you don’t hear about them because nobody fights over them.
You and I fundamentally see a different future for this country. The economy isn’t in a slump that will be forgotten in 2 years. Politicians can be opposed to a ‘Democratic Recovery Bill’, but the people that will decide if the first word matters will be the voters, and if shit is really fucked up in two years voters will forget the first word.
This is some heavy duty political posturing and pretty much a Hail Mary political pass betting that things will still look pretty gruesome by the time the next House seats come up. If things start to pick up instead then the GOP is even more in the hole than they are now.
One wonders whether all the Pubs who voted against the bill were sincerely against it – or whether they were just playing the role of an opposition party in a no-cost situation, and some of them might have switched their votes to yea if there had been a serious chance the bill would be defeated.
