January 26, 2008
Bipartisan uselessness
Posted by Jamelle under democrats, politics, republicans, the government | Tags: bipartisanship |Matt Yglesias is annoyed with the Washington Post’s bipartisan fetish:
Indeed, the CBO estimated that the most effective stimulus idea would be a temporary boost in food stamps. They concluded that the second most effective stimulus idea would be an increase in the duration of unemployment benefits. Democrats proposed both of those things. But Republicans wouldn’t go along with either. So in order to make the bill bipartisan, the best idea was stripped out. And so was the second best idea. I don’t necessarily blame the Democrats for making the compromises necessary to get a bill passed, but the fact of the matter is that bipartisanship made this bill worse than a one-party bill would have been.
Most of the Washington punditry seems to think that bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake is some sort of virtue.
No, not really.
Bipartisan cooperation is a means to a particular end; usually the passage of good legislation that addresses the concerns of most of the participants. But of course, bipartisanship is only effective when both parties have reasonable concerns, and more importantly, are actually interested in passing decent legislation.
If neither of those conditions are met, then it doesn’t make sense to go the bipartisan route. And if your opponents don’t want to cooperate, then trying to take the “bipartisan highroad” ends up being the equivalent of tying your own shoes together in a race. You’re handicapped from the start and it’s hard to recover.
To her credit, Hillary Clinton (at least in her rhetoric) seems to get that the contemporary Republican Party isn’t particularly interested in finding solutions so much as it is interested in perpetuating a status quo which privileges the powerful. I know my Republican friends and readers may protest that characterization, but honestly, how else do you explain the resolute opposition to any real solutions for education, health care, global warming, and yes, terrorism.
In each instance, the Republican “solution” amounts to lowering taxes on the very rich (vouchers, health savings accounts) or outright ignoring the problem while pouring resources in a useless boondoggle (Iraq War and missile defense v. port security and public health programs, refusing to spend money on reducing emissions v. drilling in ANWR).
If the Democrats win the presidency (which still is guaranteed) and expand their margin in Congress, then they need to use that advantage to push plans and solutions without regards to Republican input. If individual GOP legislators want to add something constructive, then by all means, they should. But considering that the past year has seen Republicans stalling and obstructing any meaningful progress, I think the best bet is to assume bad intentions on part of Republican legislators.
*As an aside, you should read Dmitry’s take on the stimulus package.
January 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I’m curious how the word bipartisan has been used in the past. The first time it really entered my consciousness was campaign finance reform. Then I got the sense that what was being discussed was a reform that was (taken to be) a good idea, which had a lot of supporters who were not necessarily concentrated in one party or the other.
It was only later that I started seeing the other usage. But perhaps this is an illusion that’s the product of my being 23 years old.
January 26, 2008 at 6:01 pm
It was only later that I started seeing the other usage. But perhaps this is an illusion that’s the product of my being 23 years old.
I mean, I’m only twenty years old. And I’m not saying that bipartisanship is “bad,” only that it shouldn’t be considered as an end in itself, as some pundits - like David Brooks - and some politicians - Lieberman - seem to think.