Ahistorical fantasies of "bipartisanship"

Post Reply New Topic

The first problem with this interpretation of American history is that it is decidedly not the complete picture. In fact, one could argue that the extension of liberty in American history has come not from consensus but from confrontation: the partisan arguments over slavery which emerged in the 1850s; the western populists of the 1890s; the women’s suffrage movement; the argument over the New Deal in the 1930s. Even one of the shining examples of bipartisanship—the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s—is not as straightforward as many would believe. It is true that there was bipartisan support from liberal Democrats and liberal and moderate Republicans to push those bills through Congress. But, and this is crucial, that bipartisan support came after hundreds of thousands of African-Americans took a partisan position that enough was enough. In so doing, they motivated hundreds of thousands of white Americans into supporting their cause. The bipartisan congressional action on legislation was brought about by partisan political action by millions of Americans

[...]

Despite these realities of American history, the idea of a founding consensus which sustained the country together in subsequent decades holds a tremendous cachet in the American consciousness. In part this is because even if the myths of history aren’t completely true, the concept itself seems to be so noble. How could anyone oppose the idea of a national consensus? This brings me to a second point, that the pursuit of bipartisanship—or consensus—contains hidden dangers that make it more likely to undermine American political liberty and stability than to sustain it.

Again, consider an historical example: at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, slavery was the single biggest threat to the creation of some kind of national government. Most historians agree that, for better or worse, the inclusion of any anti-slavery provision would have aborted the constitutional process. But, as historian Joseph Ellis observed, the tragedy of the Convention was that no-one even tried to address the issue. The Convention ignored slavery because it arrived at a consensus to ignore it. In so doing, it gave constitutional blessing to continuing human bondage for more than eighty years.

[...]

This is the insidious danger of bipartisanship: the need to exclude anybody who rejects the consensus. For example, say Politician X claims the mantle of being someone who can bring the country together (as both major candidates claimed in 2008). Then, if Politician X claims s/he has created a bipartisan solution to a problem then, by definition, anybody who rejects that solution must be working against the consensus. That is, they are a threat to unity and must be marginalized, rejected (something Senator McCain, in particular, showed a proclivity for). This is how Jefferson saw the Federalists in 1801 and it is essentially what was done to the abolitionists in the 1840s.

[...]

Those who wring their hands at the thought of partisan “bickering” and “name-calling” are missing the point. Bipartisanship is the reason we get the “big issues” of why Obama did not wear an American flag lapel-pin and how many houses McCain owned. In the absence of any real debate over truly partisan political issues, candidates have little alternative but to launch partisan personal assaults on one another. What the American political system needs is not more bipartisanship but a demand from the American people for partisan candidates. The country would be far better served with candidates of all political beliefs who will stake out clear and defined positions on important issues. They need to explain why they are right and their opponents are wrong, rather than claiming they will seek a mythical consensus

...Madison designed a government that harnessed factionalism to a system of checks and balances. That humans pursue their own selfish interests wasn't a problem, he thought, so long as someone else was there to check them by pursuing his or her own opposing interest. In a big country, the many people and interest groups wanting a say in government would balance one another out -- so long as each group was equally selfish. "Ambition," he wrote, "must be made to counteract ambition."

Madison understood the first rule of bargaining: anyone going into a negotiation asking for half of what he wants is going to end up with a lot less. Instead, people should go in asking for the impossible, but remain willing to bargain down to the possible. Madison's genius was to make this commonsense principle work to the government's advantage. Fight as hard as you want, he told U.S. politicians; you'll be performing a service by checking the other guy who's fighting just as hard. The battle itself will produce compromise.

Today's Republican leaders have learned the right lessons from Madison. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, despite his bipartisan rhetoric, has mastered the use of the filibuster to stop Democratic legislation, such as the campaign finance reform bill, that has majority support in the Senate. This isn't a bad thing; McConnell is being exactly as partisan and self-serving as Madison expected him to be, while staying well within constitutional limits.

[..]

Similarly, during the 1980s, a strong Republican president, Ronald Reagan, faced off against an equally strong Democratic Congress -- resulting in a moderate government that produced incremental change. Only when politicians violated the rule of law -- as did Southern Democrats did when they seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861 or as President Nixon did during Watergate -- did their partisanship imperil the government.

Obama and other advocates of bipartisanship see things differently. They seek a return to the politics of the 1950s and early 1960s, when two moderate presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy, combined with a moderate Congress to produce a remarkable -- and unusual -- consensus.

Only once before, during the "Era of Good Feelings" under President Monroe (1817 to 1825), did political agreement rule the day. Too much consensus, however, isn't necessarily a good thing. In both cases, eras of good feelings hid important divisions in society that soon bubbled to the surface, leading to periods of divisive partisanship in the contentious Jackson Era and the strife-torn 1960s.

[...]

Obama's desire for compromise on the filibuster is understandable but misguided. The president needn't worry that trying to limit McConnell's use of the filibuster would display too much partisanship; U.S. politics is designed to compensate for that problem. Instead, the danger is that McConnell's partisan tactics, admirable in a well-balanced system, have become tyrannical because Democrats aren't doing enough to check them

Looks like Obama hasn't learned his lesson - here's still trying to act "above the fray" and "work with" his political enemies.

Clinton was able to work with Newt Gingrich.

Clinton was able to work with Newt Gingrich.

And Clinton's marvelous deregulation of the financial industry is what sank the world economy and still has its guts in its teeth tearing the world to shreds and awarding its top executives billions in rewards.

And Clinton's marvelous deregulation of the financial industry is what sank the world economy and still has its guts in its teeth tearing the world to shreds and awarding its top executives billions in rewards.

Looks like Obama hasn't learned his lesson - here's still trying to act "above the fray" and "work with" his political enemies.

Now, nothing coming out of Washington isn't such a bad thing. Stop the bleeding is the first step.

Corporate neo-feudalism by 2012!! !!

Government is merely a tool for these huge corporations to stifle competition. I'd rather take my chances on my own.

The Republicans (as the revolving door of the Bush era) will certainly not obstruct that function of government!