Jamie Friedland's picture

    President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

    By Jamie Friedland on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 10:01am |

    President Obama campaigned on bipartisanship.  We wanted a change, so he chose not to investigate the partisan excesses and likely transgressions of the Bush administration; he unhinged the pendulum and just laid it on the ground.  Instead of overcorrecting in the other direction, he tried to start anew as a united nation.  America was ready to move forward.  The Republican Party was not.

    Ideally, in our two party system, each governing party has a different plan to move America forward.  When problems arise, Democrats propose to move forward slanting to the left, Republicans propose to move forward slanting to the right, and when they finally come together and compromise on necessary legislation, we as a country end up simply moving forward and addressing the problem (see graphic below).

    It's a little messier in practice.  Because one party controls the White House at a time and Congress is rarely evenly split, final legislation generally skews towards the ruling party rather than perfectly straddling the center.  It must also be mentioned that sometimes there is a right and a wrong answer.  And on a related note, a political compromise that pleases both parties is not ipso facto good policy: for example, the stimulus package contained both Democratic spending projects and tax breaks that Republicans would normally support, but it was not enough to promote a strong recovery.

    Bipartisanship is not always the solution, but it is an important concept in a democratic republic like ours.  And President Obama bears some responsibility for its contemporary demise.  Although he acted with good intentions, his transcendent quest to achieve bipartisanship ironically doomed itself with partisan politics.

    Had Republicans shared this bipartisan vision, Obama’s plan could well have succeeded.  Alas, insert two-way street aphorism here.

    At the most basic level, in a two party political system, one party’s success is the other party’s failure.  The converse is equally true.  Again, ideally, a shared desire to address a crisis creates some middle ground for bipartisan compromise.  Yet a hyperpartisan mindset obliterates that middle ground.  Under current Senate rules that allow what should really be called a 41-member “superminority” to obstruct Congressional action, lawmaking grinds to a halt.  Problems progress, but legislation languishes.

    When both parties want to address a problem facing America, there is often (but not always) a middle path.  When at least one party chooses to pursue political advantage at the expense of our nation’s well-being, compromise becomes impossible.

    With surging unemployment and an anemic recovery, Republicans concluded that the painful status quo benefitted them.  They did not want to move forward.  Indeed, they were rooting against America because both America’s failures would be blamed upon the Democratic majority and administration and pay political dividends.  Sadly, in our toxic political climate, you do not earn points for bipartisan assists; all that matters is the score, Republicans vs. Democrats.

    Yet Republicans initiated this confrontational scenario, so that much cannot be blamed on President Obama.  There is another variable that can.

    Because Obama campaigned on bipartisanship, that middle compromise space between a Democratic policy and a Republican policy turned blue.  In that binary hyperpartisan world, cooperation became a win for Democrats and a loss for Republicans.  So via obstructionism, the GOP could now play legislative defense and political offense simultaneously.

    Even though he has made clear concessions to Republican policy preferences, when Obama made bipartisanship a campaign pledge, the middle ground ceased to be politically neutral.  This didn’t force Republicans to abandon bipartisanship, but it did provide them a stronger incentive.

    Of course this tactic held our country hostage and prolonged American suffering in the process.   Unfortunately, overly balanced media coverage combined with admittedly effective GOP spin (having your own network helps) enabled conservatives to pull off this maneuver without being called out for it.

    So Republicans holed up.  Elected lawmakers became fulltime law-stoppers, particularly in the Senate.  They voted against a stimulus package that was watered down on their behalf and full of conservative tax breaks.  They opposed an oil spill/clean energy jobs bill that contained entire sections unanimously approved by bipartisan committees and even cosponsored by Republicans.  The conservative caucus is united in lockstep against anything the Democrats attempt to accomplish, no matter how reasonable or nonpartisan the measure may be.

    Even though Obama appears to have been sincere in his hope to work together in moderation (as demonstrated by his history of making compromises that please nobody), his plan for bipartisanship backfired because Republicans continued to operate from a hyperpartisan perspective.  Obama said he would end the mud-slinging; conservatives have defeated him simply by continuing to wallow.

    In the meantime, the Democratic Party has wasted two years.

    Republicans have triumphed at America's expense.  Unless current electoral indicators are drastically mistaken, they will benefit handsomely from this strategy in November.  I am concerned about that outcome, but far more displeased with the precedent this could set for our country.

    Comments

    I'm worried, too, about the precedent that this sets. This unfortunate change in the political meaning of bipartisanship can't be reversed, as far as I can see.


    by worthlesscitizen (not verified) on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 11:50am

    Bipartisanship died a long time ago. It certainly died with the impeachment of President Clinton, it died when the Republican led SCOTUS stopped the counting of votes in Florida, and it died with the hope of the GOP to drown the government in a bathtub.

    Many who voted for Obama, and Obama himself, hoped that with the pressing problems the country faces and with the failures and fiascoes of the 8 years of the GW Bush administration, that politicians of both parties would face up to the fact that the government must act to address important issues.

    The GOP refuses to look for solutions or for a way forward.  To a large a portion of the electorate government has a no perceived role in their future, or the future of this country, beyond conducting perpetual war abroad, that is bankrupting the country, while also ginning up culture wars at home. Bipartisanship will come back from the dead only when voters of both parties demand a role for government in addressing and solving the daunting predicaments the country faces.


    by NCD on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 12:37pm

    I wish the voters would make that demand, but at the moment it seems like extermists and conservative pundits are driving Tea Party fervor more than the public is imposing its will on Congress.


    by Jamie Friedland on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 2:07pm

    He needed to use some of his power to divide the GOP - to shatter some of its Congressional players off from others. He could have done it by investigating past misdemeanours, by crafting a handful of deliberately divisive proposals - and then, when there were key GOP players or policies that the saner individuals felt they needed to distance themselves from, by offering them significant wins/benefits.

    Instead, it's felt/looked like the most ridiculously sophomoric approach - force-free. Absolutely absurd. 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 1:05pm

    Things could have gone a little better...


    by Jamie Friedland on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 2:08pm

    See, I don't recall - at any point along the way trying to convince people to vote for Obama - saying to potential voters "Hey! Elect Obama, he'll make sure these morons who screwed up our whole nation will have an equal say in everything he does." That just wasn't the sale. The whole point of kicking the GOP out of office was that they weren't cutting it, why the hell would anyone want them mucking up the way forward? That doesn't make a lick of sense. No American who voted for Obama would ever want that to happen. That's WHY we have parties in the first place - if they're in bed with each other we're screwed.

    To me, saying Obama "campaigned on" bipartisanship and making that the focal, or primary, promise of his campaign is revisionism of the highest order. Yeah bipartisanship became a demand and media focus ... mid-October when it was apparent Obama was going to win. If you are going to lose, doesn't it make a lot of sense to demand the opposition give you equal say? OF COURSE under those circumstances the GOP (and their media organs) will want to hype bipartisanship, and that's just what happened. What makes far less sense is actually allowing the opposition you just defeated to define the concept and then agreeing to make that THE objective of an administration - what the hell is the point of voting the GOP out in that circumstance? The whole idea falls under the weight of absurdity.

    Bipartisanship is a bullshit construct created by Karl Rove - not something to "get back to". We've never had it. America from it's very foundation is an ADVERSARIAL system. That's what we have. The sides fight for what they want, and one wins while the other loses. If you aren't fighting, you just lost. The end.

    The GOP announced early 2009 their plan to oppose anything and everything the Democrats did. Now, clearly Obama isn't stupid, so it's not like there was any expectation from his side that your nicely vectored Graph #1 would EVER be possible. And the GOP announcement was made well before any of the major policy debates even started. It defies logic to think Obama expected the GOP to behave any differently than they did.

    What really happened is Obama grabbed the concept and has used it in the most cynical fashion possible to triangluate his own side. Knowing the GOP had a unified stance of obstruction, keeping Lincoln and Nelson in his pocket allowed him to wield effective control of the Senate filibuster. "Bipartisanship" then provided a built in excuse for not using his bully pulpit and actual power to help advance major planks of his campaign platform while Rham and Co. sold those planks off to the highest bidder. Let's face it he went to bat for both Lincoln and Nelson in a way he never has for any other Democrats - the liberals were "Fucking Retarded" for wanting to run ads pressuring Nelson, remember? If they were *really* opposing him, as the preferred Democratic narrative currently goes, why would he proactively support them so aggressively?

    I think the whole idea of Obama's dedication to bipartisanship as reason for Democratic lameness starts from a false premise and goes downhill from there. Although, I think you pretty much nail the dynamics that we just went through and real impact it has had on our national well being - you make the mistake of ascribing to Obama a babe-in-the-woods naivete that just isn't plausible.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 4:37pm

    Hi kgb,

    Not trying to engage in revisionism.  As usual, You raise some great points.  First, adversarial politics does run deep in our history.  Obama touted his history of reaching across the aisle, but bipartisanship was not the running campaign focus.  Yet it did rise to preeminence in the media narrative - conservatives obviously hyped it for the reasons you describe, but why did the administration buy in?  There must have been a conscious decision there. 

    You and Articleman both made the valid point that this theory does kind of rest on Obama essentially overlooking the political ramifications of a major action, which does seem unlikely. 

    So why did he do it?  It is so obvious that Republicans could simply withhold their participation to deny bipartisanship.  Did Obama think the public would be angry about that?  Judge them for it?  Shame them into action? 

    I don't think this is the reason for, as you call it, "Democratic lameness," but I really am having difficulty figuring out what they'd hoped to gain and what equation they were looking at when they made this call.

    To me, this is reminiscent of the administration caving on offshore drilling in advance of a climate/energy bill where - if we were willing to cave on that point - we could have gotten something in exchange as a compromise. 

    Both episodes appear to be exceedingly poor political decisions to those of us on the outside.  Are they glaring mistakes or do they see something we don't?


    by Jamie Friedland on Mon, 09/20/2010 - 5:12pm

    The whole fable of a golden era of bipartisanship is just that: a fable.  There was never any such thing.  Obama's bormides about bipartisanship during the campaign were naive and foolish and he has stubbornly refused, despite all evidence, to give up hope of returning to the mythical bipartisan golden age of DC and that stubborn naivete of his has caused tremendous damage to Democrats, progressives and Obama himself.

    The times that some now nostalgically recall were when Democrats were so dominant that Republicans had no choice but to try and be reasonable or get completely left out of the picture.  That's when Democrats still had a backbone.  Alas, they no longer have a backbone and the compromises and capitulations of Obama that he believed wold be reciprocated only emboldened his critics because each time he was seen offering the olibe branch, the sociopathic Republican right sees such things as weakness.  This explains why despite all Obama's offers the mighty right wing wurlitzer gins up the teabaggers to new heights of frenzied racist hatred.


    by oleeb on Tue, 09/21/2010 - 1:40am

    Latest Comments