Not to sound stodgy and old fashioned and -- well -- Republicany, but I believe there is value in true bipartisanship, particularly when the two political parties are of similar strength. Recall the last eight years and ask where the winner-take-all approach to governance has taken the country – and the Republican Party.
In my idealistic construct of a well functioning democracy, people of good will and opposing philosophies work together to fashion laws and policies that advance the common interest. When there is disagreement, they negotiate in good faith to craft legislation that commands the largest majority they can achieve without abandoning their core values. They may engage in horse trading (“I’ll support your bridge to nowhere if you support my stairway to heaven”) but back in the day horse trading was considered the art of politics. Giving everyone a voice in crafting a bill isn’t inherently bad. While I agree with BTD that David Broder and his fellow advocates for continued Republican rule of a supposedly centrist-right nation are in no position, given the election results, to "insist" on bipartisan compromise, I do not view it as "nefarious and anti-democratic" to seek compromise.
Bipartisanship is essential to a well functioning democracy. I agree with Barack Obama’s argument that reasonable representatives of both parties should be able to sit down together, gather information about a problem, discuss the full range of potential responses, and adopt the best solutions regardless of which party originates them. Policy preferences of the majority party will drive most legislation, but if the minority party offers a constructive amendment or introduces a worthy bill, the public should not be denied its benefit simply because it came from the opposition party.
In a well functioning democracy, votes will sometimes split along party lines, particularly when legislation goes to a core party value, but sometimes an elected representative will defy the party to do what she deems best for her constituents or conscience, perhaps as a result of horse trading. Ultimately legislation will pass and things will happen. Those things will usually satisfy the majority party more than the minority party, but if the Senate minority can muster a credible filibuster threat, it increases its opportunity to influence the bill. Of course, a minority party that stands together can use the filibuster to block legislation that offends the party’s widely shared values.
I understand that my construct of a well functioning democracy is a mirror image of our malfunctioning democracy under recent Republican majorities. The Karl Rove approach to power – seize it ruthlessly, wield it unilaterally, keep it by demonizing your enemy and frightening the public – is not bipartisan. By commanding extraordinary party discipline, Republican majorities under Bush advanced no agenda but their own. They played like bullies on the political playground. So long as the slim Republican majority stood as one behind its leader, it could have its way with the war, with the budget, and with any law for which it could whip up sufficient public support to avoid a filibuster (putting the word “terrorist” in the bill’s title was generally enough to eliminate that threat). The Republican majority protected executive power and thwarted accountability.
This is not a model Democrats should emulate. It is democratic in the narrow sense that the majority outvotes the minority, but not in the sense of shared, responsible governance. Even accepting that Democrats would operate with purer motivations than the Republicans did, or for worthier purposes, unilateral governance risks becoming an arrogant exercise of power. We have seen how voters eventually punish a governing party that does not govern for the common good.
Having laid this foundation but before moving on, I want to emphasize that this ideal of a well functioning democracy depends upon the willingness of reasonable representatives of both parties to work together in good faith, subject to their need to adhere to the core values of their respective political philosophies. Reasonable representatives of the Republican Party are an endangered species, although I hear a pair has been spotted in Maine. If Republicans in the House and Senate continue to be vicious, intolerant, and extreme, or if they work to obstruct every significant bill that Democrats seek to pass, they will continue to play a diminishing role in our government’s stewardship because voters will grow increasingly weary of their pointless posturing and Democrats will give them no respect.
At this point we circle back to today’s political reality: the coalition that kept Republicans competitive and often in power has fractured. Republicans lost hugely in 2006 and again in 2008. What does this say about mandates and the nature of the post-bipartisan approach the Obama government should take? Are Republicans now a permanent minority? My musings on these questions will appear in a day or two. (Please wait to read part 2 before you blast me for being a “go slow, be cautious” advocate. I’m not. I’m a respect the process advocate.)
Link to Part 2
