During the election, much of the talk in regards to then candidate Obama was about post-partisanship. There was a pretty steady refrain about how the presidency of Obama was going to herald the beginning of a post-partisan politics where finally Washington would find a way of putting aside its differences and work together for the greater good of the country.
And don’t get me wrong, I was all ears. The fact that this promise of post-partisanship formed the much of the foundation of Obama’s campaign was what drew me in and made me a fan from pretty early on.
Needless to say, that promise hasn’t really come true and while it was exciting to have a candidate running for President who at least felt like utilizing that message was important, it never really had much of a chance of coming true, realistically. Not to be deterred, some folks have now moved the goal posts as a result, talking endlessly about the importance of and Obama’s unerring commitment to bipartisanship.
And I can’t help but think that all this talk of bipartisanship is really just another plank in our politics of distraction, about which I tweeted last night and about which I intend to write further once I have my thoughts more accurately in order.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to bipartisanship in theory or general. The idea of America’s two major parties working in tandem despite many differences to generate good legislation with positive outcomes for the country’s citizens is a hard thing to oppose. Rather, it is with the application of that idea that I tend to have some problems and the sort of watered down politics that it tends to engender.
A couple of points around how bipartisanship can and does often fall short of its lofty goals:
Name checking – as per Kevin Drum’s comments in regards to Obama’s health care speech,
The relentless attempt to appear bipartisan was kind of grating. I mean, how many Republicans did he end up namechecking by the time he was done?
This particular brand of bipartisanship rankles as the most lacking in substance and it is not at all below many politicians to engage in it for the sole purpose of optics. Sometimes, all bipartisanship means is to be able to read the right names off of the right list in order to appear as thought one has gone through the appropriate motions in order to appear to have done a good job. When both parties in the process are as at odds as the Democrats and the Republicans, this form of bipartisanship can, sadly, become the go-to form of appeasement.
For the win – it is true that many politicians do in fact sit down with their opponents, rather than just name checking. And it is also true that in those meetings, they may well talk things over, compare ideas, and contrast suggestions. But at the end of the day, often times everything is coordinate with the attitude that this is what must be done in order to score the requisite political points to win. There can often be the perception that few pieces of legislation can pass unless one has at least gone through motions of at least cursorily consulting all the right people (Obama has been accused of this style of bipartisanship in the past – “I have heard and understood what so-and-so is saying, but….” A step up from name checking, for sure, but this process continues to have little in the way of substance or value because no one is focused on it for the right reasons.
Sloppy centrism – arguably this is simultaneously the most committed and odious form of bipartisanship that seems in broad practice. Committed because one actually does something with one’s bipartisan efforts, but odious because those efforts ultimately undermine a discourse and practice of politics that is serious and of substance.
One sits down with one’s opponents and compromises on a variety of issues, but does so in a relatively mindless fashion. At the end of the process, there has been political trading (I get this, you get this) and there is legislation that contains ideas from both sides, but no real critical thought goes into what is traded and what is kept, the point is to get a “balanced” piece of legislation in terms idea quantification, rather than qualification.
It goes for both sides that not all ideas are of equal value and therefore not all ideas, just because they come from the opposing camp, ought to be included just because doing so will help to forward a piece of legislation. It’s true that one can’t be so strident as to sink the ship on an issue of little consequence, it remains true that politics is about compromising towards engaging in the “art of the possible”. But real bipartisanship, to my mind, involves looking over the other sides ideas and critically evaluation which of them will actually improve the legislation and state of affairs for one’s citizens as a whole.
What make sloppy centrism the most mendacious, by my lights, is that its slippery ubiquity seems really to be the kind of bipartisanship we’re talking about when we laud the intrinsic value of bipartisanship today. In this regard, it is the type of bipartisanship that most blunts and dilutes our political process in significant ways and leads us into politics of distractions today. Its very essence is to eschew serious consideration and the use of critical faculties in analyzing different pieces of legislation and courses of action, in favour of the gentle tyranny mediated mediocrity, a new age beauty pageant where everyone wins by losing.
To be sure, there could be a value to real bipartisan efforts, but they require a great deal more from us than we generally acknowledge, or willingly offer up.
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
James Hanley 
Jaybird 
Fish 
Will Truman 
Human Hireling 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 41 comments }
On the sloppy centrism point – something I’ve noticed is that often when we’re talking about bipartisanship, we’re talking about trying to compromise with moderates. However, as I hope to eventually argue should I ever have the time to finish the post up, moderates are in effect a third party within Congress, some with Ds after their name, some with Rs after their name, with the exact ratio of Ds to Rs within that de facto third party being the principle thing up for grabs in a given election. This creates a situation where that de facto third party just about always wins on any policy issue of significance. If the hardcore Ds and Rs recognized this then they would stop trying to so regularly compromise with so-called “moderates” as if those moderates were the best path to legislative success and instead tried to compromise directly with the hardcore folks on the other side of the aisle. It seems to me that recognizing this would result in very different types of compromises. Whether these types of compromises would of necessity be “better” is another issue, but I suspect that on average they would be.
Interesting point. Actually certain bipartisan bills like – you guessed it! – Wyden/Bennett smack more of this sort of compromise than the sloppy-centrism of the Baucus plan. You get actual left/right reforms co-existing in one bill, rather than concessions and watered-down legislation.
Well, naturally I had W-B in the back of my mind when I started working on this idea.
W-B may well be an example of truly constructive bipartisanship. You both would know better than I.
The flip side of W-B is McCain-Feingold which is an absolutely terrible piece of legislation. So terrible, in fact, it’s a repeat offender at SCOTUS.
Which isn’t to say that Mark’s rather interesting point isn’t sound. More of an open musing that perhaps triangulated bills (rather unlike Baucus’) end up being less dramatic and consequently have fewer vested interests determined to defeat the law after passage.
An opportunity to tell an old joke. Would that I had more willpower…
A number of foreign tourists who did not speak English very well were being given a tour of the Capitol building. “We have two parties in this country,” the tour guide explained helpfully, “the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.” The tourists nodded. “Sometimes they work together to do something both stupid and evil. This is called ‘bipartisanship’.”
My problem with sloppy centrism is *THAT* exactly. Be hot. That’s fine. There are reasons for that. Or be cold. That’s cool too. There are reasons for *THAT*. But lukewarm? I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Heh.
Me and my pig joke have been put in our place. /sulk.
A joke like that you can’t tell all at once.
Without disagreeing with you, I would perhaps offer that affliction cuts deeper than just a moderate-v-hardcores divide and is a systemic bug to which they both sucumb, though, admittedly often in very different ways.
“In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” – Theodore Roosevelt.
A pretty good case against Centrism. I think it’s important to denote that Bipartisanship is basically just the two sides working out an agreement. I’m okay so long as the result isn’t just the worst of both sides. Centrism (*spit, spit*) is usually just a rough triangulation and mostly worthless. And it gives an inordinate amount of power to people who are pretty lukewarm on their ideals.
Good points, of course, Mike. My concern is that bipartisanship and centrism ate becoming pretty chronically conflates and both falling into the sloppy, mindless camp. This needn’t necessarily be the case for either, but the fact that it is points to a much larger problem of which this is a symptom. My “politics of distraction” thesis is another iteration of me trying to bite into this larger issue in some kind of compelling way. Part of it is a general buy in across a much broader spectrum than we generally acknowledge about the narrative of our politics. It seems increasingly to me that it’s a pale dance of relativistic shadows mascarading as an epic battle of high minded ideals. A faux bipartisanship through a sloppy centrism based largely on distractions is, in some senses, a predictable outcome.
My contention is that i’d much rather hear an honest debate between the two extremes (not the hysterical, Code Pink,/Teabaggers, but the the intelligent principled extremes) than a muddled, as you call it, faux debate, between two positions that are very close to each other and splitting hairs.
I don’t know if that’s a good case against Centrism. Doing nothing – going back to a good point Freddie’s made a few times – lands pretty solidly on the conservative approach to policy side of the field.
At least when it comes to health care reform, it’s the Centrists who stand to lose the most if nothing happens. After all it won’t be John Kerry who loses his seat but Blanche Lincoln. Then again, the way things are going for Senator Lincoln, even if it passes she may lose. Either way it’s often the centrists who have the most strategic need to get something done.
I guess the counter-argument is that often Centrist compromises really don’t do anything. They move the ball so little that really nothing is learned. I would much rather nothing happen or the converse which is to try one extreme and then have the honesty to admit if it failed and go the opposite route (I know, this is wishful thinking that the government can learn from its mistakes – but we can dream).
I think the Founding Fathers realized that this country is an experiment. Ideas are tried and we’re supposed to be able to change course when they fail. That’s why states are sometimes refered to as the laboratories of democracy. As a conservative I’d feel better about an extremely liberal bill going through with no hint of conservatism in it. That way if it fails, there’s no room to blame that failure on the Right. If it succeeds then we eat crow – but the American public wins. As it is now, with these crappy Centrist plans aimed at compromise it really just gives everyone ammo to blame the other side if it fails which I think has become the operating principle for Washington. Cover your ass.
Fair enough and in a theoretical sense, I rather agree. Though, I think that would require more rationality than the present state of affairs evinces.
Then again I’m a big believer in consistency of principle/goal so all things being equal I’d be fine with more purist sentiments, with the same caveats you mention, Mike.
Presently though, I’m rather discouraged by the tendency for ideologues in both parties to double down on things of mixed success rather than review them.
Critical self-reflection is difficult. Uncritical insistence upon the moral and logical failings of your opponent far, far easier.
Critical self-reflection is difficult. Uncritical insistence upon the moral and logical failings of your opponent far, far easier.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
Ack that 4th sentence should read:
Presently though, I’m rather discouraged by the tendency for ideologues in both parties to double down on things of mixed success rather than review them.
So edited.
If anything, I think that this discussion understates the problems with “sloppy centrism.” Because the centrist party is so ideologically unmoored, compromises with centrists tend towards outright horsetrading. Where Conservatives and Liberals might be able to synthesize their ideologies in certain ways, leading to bills like Wyden-Bennett, Liberals or Conservatives basically just have to bribe centrists.
If Wyden-Bennett is the epitome of bi-partisanship between ideologues, Waxman-Markley is probably the epitome of bi-partisanship between ideologues and centrists. Here you had Liberals with a cohesive idea to remedy a market failure, a bunch of centrists that didn’t want the businesses in their districts to be harmed, and a bunch of Conservatives that weren’t interested in playing ball. This meant that the Liberals had to compromise the bill by riddling it with handouts to special interests that made it a worse bill on the merits, rather than responding to more ideological concerns from a philosophically coherent opposition.
How does an American, cognizant and accepting of the founding principles, compromise with Obamacon socialism?
They take power themselves, spend to a degree that make even the Democrats lift an eyebrow but rather than pay for it themselves borrow the hell out of the sucker and pass the buck to Obama and then shriek like fruitbats about fiscal discipline from the wilderness?
Thanks, North!
North = win.
Heh.
/bow
I am in awe. Well done.
Where’s John Belushi when you need him?
John Belushi?
Bob, he’s dead. I’m sorry you had to hear it from me.
DEAD?!!!!!!
Ah, Jeez!
Fat chance of bi-partisan politics when a minority have control over the means of production!
Thoughtful post, Scott. The one comment I have – which is totally in character from our past back and forths on foreign policy- is that successful bipartisan legislation/programmatic support then becomes national policy as opposed to mere programmatic preference. The difference between law and politics, really.
On the foreign policy front, containment springs to mind, and domestically, the federal highway system. These were both policies that existed for years without significant political resistance because both parties basically said, what’s not to like?
Arguably the continued presence, success of Medicare and Social Security stem from their solidly bipartisan genesis. Not to make or overstate a case for bipartisanship but to point out that the hard to resist allure of bipartisanship – particularly for Presidents – is the stamp of legitimacy and permanency they leave on legislation.
If you were to frame it as a choice of getting 80% of what you want with a 50% chance of passage and a dim future of court challenges, denunciations, and attempts to weaken and repeal your law versus a 75% chance of passage with 60% of what you wanted and a brighter future, I think the appeal, if not the substance of going bipartisan is alluring. You get a higher chance of passage of something that you want and a stab at greater longevity. For politicians, who rarely get all of what they want anyway, it’s probably a decent trade. For wonks, with no stomach for or the desire to get into political reality, it’s a terrible trade.
There are typically 2 reasons why bipartisanship gets opposed: politics and policy.
- If the majority party opposes bipartisanship, it’s usually about policy (they think theirs is better and they don’t want to compromise).
- If the majority party supports bipartisanship, it’s usually about politics (they aren’t positive their plan will work and they want political cover)
- If the minority party opposes bipartisanship, it’s usually about politics (they don’t want the other side to accomplish anything).
- If the majority party supports bipartisanship, it’s usually about policy (they are willing to take something over nothing)
Of course there are all sorts of gray areas…but generally speaking this is a good way to view the approach to bipartisanship.
That’s a damn good list Mike.
That’s a good framework for viewing party incentives to support or oppose bipartisanship.
I think if you look at the individual incentives it holds a lot of allure for individual politicians for both policy and political reasons. However, I think what you said, Mike, fits better for both houses, whereas, the individual incentive look applies less to the House of Representatives because a.) it matters less and b.) avenues for individual political reward outside the party are much narrower.
I love this grid.
Let me just add myself to the chorus of admirers.
Well played, Mike. I think this speaks to my earlier comment. The tool analogy that keeps running through my head in regards to the general formulation and application of bipartisanship is that the participating parties are utilizing a scale as opposed to a razor (if that makes any sense). The practice of politics ought to be about sharpening your razor and not about balancing your scale.
Thanks for the compliments. I was waiting for the other Leaguers to poke holes in it. If my theory holds true it’s quite obvious the healthcare debate in particular is all about the politics.
And I don’t exactly know where the moderates fit in. I think for them maybe it’s a mix of politics and policy? They like the idea of things moving forward, even if it’s a small step and they also like the political power that comes with brokering these kinds of deals. It’s why Olympia Snowe is getting lots of TV time these days. With Kennedy’s vote gone for the moment, she is a very important piece of the puzzle.
They went into the moderates a lot on TNR. What it boils down to is that they’d like for their party to succeed and advance their agenda but only with them -personally- voting against it. So in our current scenario the blue dog dem would love for healthcare to pass, the more liberal the better, so long as he is on record voting against it. Their nightmare scenario is for the bill to fail with them on the record supporting it.
I just realized – that last one should read minority, not majority.
Comments on this entry are closed.