Voters clearly rejected the conservative philosophies that caused the economy’s meltdown: it was the 2008 election’s defining issue. They rejected John McCain’s model of health care reform. In 2006, they rejected the neocon lust to use military power to shape foreign governments. Barack Obama and Democrats have a mandate to move forward with all deliberate speed in those areas.
Arguably Obama has a mandate to implement every specific policy change described on his campaign website or promised in a speech, but I seriously doubt that most voters for either candidate had a clear understanding of issues that were not central to the campaign (for instance, Obama’s positions on criminal justice reform). I’m not at all sure that the independent/swing voters who decide elections have embraced a larger progressive philosophy. I wish it were true (and think it may be true for young voters), but I suspect that most independent voters who cast a ballot for Obama voted for competence, not for a comprehensive progressive philosophy. Staring at an economic crisis that Republicans stoked, remembering Katrina and cronyism and the mismanagement of two wars, swing voters opted for Obama because he, unlike McCain, inspired confidence that government could be made to function again. Obama’s largest mandate, it seems to me, is to use good judgment, to govern competently and honestly, and to clean up the mess that Republican government created.
After repeatedly promising to be a post-partisan president -- to be every American’s president, not just a president for liberal bloggers like me -- Obama created a mandate to govern in a bipartisan way. This does not mean that Obama should advance some elements of a conservative agenda or that he should move slowly on economic and health care reform or troop withdrawal. I agree with Krugman that "Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president." Voters put Obama in office to fix problems his way, not to give Republican ideology a do-over.
Democrats can govern in a bipartisan way by following procedures that allow the minority party to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. This is something Republicans did not do. In a 2006 Rolling Stone article, Matt Taibbi explained how Republicans ruled by cabal, shutting Democrats out of the secret meetings at which they crafted legislation.
American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus -- so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft -- a fact the Republicans don't even bother to conceal.
Democrats should not play those games. Democrats should play by the rules and govern responsibly. They should enact laws openly. They should give Republicans a chance to be heard. Democrats were not elected to help Republicans advance a conservative agenda, but Democrats should give Republicans a fair opportunity to be heard as bills advance through the legislative process.
In the House, Republicans are likely to have little overall influence on legislation, but if Republicans advance a sound amendment that improves a bill, the amendment shouldn’t be rejected simply because it comes from a Republican. Bipartisanship requires the majority party at least to listen to the minority, even if the minority view is ultimately unpersuasive. In the Senate, the power of the filibuster gives the minority party greater influence. As tempting as it would be to threaten the nuclear option if Republicans filibuster judicial candidates, an irresponsible Republican tactic would be just as irresponsible if indulged in by Democrats.
By virtue of their numbers, Senate Democrats will be in a good position to advance progressive legislation and to overcome filibusters. By voting so many Democrats into office, the public sent a message that it wants Democrats to get things done. Without a leader in the White House enforcing party unity, and with 19 Republican senators facing reelection in two years, I question how frequently Republicans in the Senate will stand together to block significant legislation. Democrats should be able to scare up the few Republican votes they will need to move their central agenda forward against threatened filibusters. Democrats may have to cut some deals that send a little extra infrastructure money to Maine, or they may have to make some face-saving adjustments to legislation to bring enough Republicans aboard, but that’s how bipartisan politics works.
In the executive branch, bipartisan governance means, in part, that administrative agencies should follow the rule-making process that the Bush administration so often ignored. Administrative rules are typically proposed and publicized, allowing a time for public comment and rule revision before the rule is finally enacted. That procedure gives all voices a chance to be heard and permits the public to influence the rule-making process. The Bush administration repeatedly adopted "emergency rules" in non-emergency situations, set unreasonably short comment periods, and ignored public comment, assuring that its rules were made without bipartisan influence. Even now, the administration is rushing to enact rules despite voters' rejection of Republican administration of the nation's government. Barack Obama can restore bipartisanship to the Executive Branch by assuring that agencies listen to all voices before promulgating a final rule.
So post-partisan governance means, in part, following procedures that allow the minority party to participate in the lawmaking process. The last question I want to examine is how to go about advancing a progressive agenda in a bipartisan way, given that the outer limits of a progressive mandate are unclear. I’ll have some thoughts on that in a day or two.
Link to Part 3 (link will activate after Part 3 is posted)
