Interesting read... http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/why_bipartisanship_cant_work.php#more Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view I got this note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill: "GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.' "Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?' "GOP member: 'You know I can't vote for the bill.' "Dem member: 'Then why should we put it in the bill?' "I witnessed this myself." I wrote back saying, "Great story!" and got the response I quote below and after the jump. It is worth reading because its argument has the valuable quality of being obvious -- once it is pointed out. The emphasis is mine rather than in the original; it is to highlight a basic structural reality that has escaped most recent analysis of the "bipartisanship" challenge. "BTW, that exchange I quoted is not really a great story. It is a basic story, fundamental to legislation -- a sort of 'duh!' moment -- and to the US Congressional system, and to the key difference between our system and a parliamentary system when it comes to bipartisanship. I'm astonished every pundit doesn't already get it, but many either don't or seem willfully to ignore it. "In our system, if the minority party can create and enforce party discipline (which has never really been done before, but which the GOP has now accomplished), then OF COURSE there can be no 'bipartisanship' on major legislative matters, in the sense of (1) the minority adding provisions to legislation as the majority compromises with them, and (2) at least some minority party members then voting with the majority. "In a parliamentary system, the minority party is not involved in helping write or voting for major legislation either. If you think about it, and as that exchange I quoted shows, that sort of 'bipartisanship' really can't happen in a parliamentary system on issues where the minority party has the power to tell its members to boycott the majority's major bills on final passage. "Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join. Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today. "The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else's approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before -- even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems. "The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.) "I've missed almost all the punditry this past week... but what I've seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of 'why no bipartisanship?' There's really nothing more to be said about "why no bipartisanship," once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it's absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It's doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again... "Ironically, the one thing that might lubricate some bipartisanship -- earmarks, or their functional equivalent in specific amendments of general policy -- is becoming unavailable just when needed, and when it might help. After the exchange I quoted (and observed), a Dem could run against that GOP incumbent by pointing out that the GOP opponent lost X or Y or Z project or policy benefit for his or her district or state by insisting on voting down the line with the GOP. 'Put his party above his constituents,' might be the charge, or 'Put Michael Steele above you and me.' But so far, the Dems don't seem to have cottoned onto this. They could go into the 2010 elections not just challenging the obstructionists in the GOP, but showing the electorate what the price of obstruction has been for real people back home." As I have pointed out a time or two or a thousand, the structural failures of American government are the country's main problem right now. In this installment, we see that the US now has the drawbacks of a parliamentary system -- absolute party-line voting by the opposition, for instance -- without any of the advantages, from comparable solidarity among the governing party to the principle of "majority rules." If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues -- if everyone can find a way to talk about them -- that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to "No" as a bloc.
I was going to start a similar thread, something bugging me about all the "LBJ would have gotten it done" posts in the healthcare threads and an interesting point of view on this topic I heard last week on MSNBC and that even came up in Obama's meeting with Republican leaders For years the republicans (yes I'm blaming them exclusively) have been harping on the anti government message that we have now seen from tea partiers. The point on MSNBC, I wish I could remember who made it maybe Chuck Todd, is that now you can't use these gov't programs as bargaining chips. Now if a Republican goes home to constiuents and says, "yes, I voted for healthare but look at these new highway funds I got in return" said republican is going to get blasted for accepting any federal gov't assistance. These guys can't go home and tout anything they are getting from the bad evil tyrannical federal gov't. Obama addressed a similar point that they have backed themselves now into such extreme positions, that they can't vote for anything without risking losing re-election. So now they are forced to vote no for everything. The reason I brought all this LBJ slopping on getting things done, is that Obama is working in a totally different era. LBJ was showing great leadership, he wasn't wheeling and dealing, something these guys can't do now because these idiots in the minority party have pretty much set themselves up as the anti anything federal government
Americans don't want bipartisan, because we vote that way. We want a government that is in grid lock 90% of the time.
Concur. A likely reason for this is the type of thinking (or non-thinking) embraced by pgabriel. Seriously, whether Democrat or Republican, we should be working for moderates who work for the good of the country rather than for the good of their party.
Minnesota State Senator John Marty (Democrat) told a very similar story today in a gubanotorial debate. He said that he had once been approached by a Republican legislator to propose a bill that would increase regulation on certain business practices. The Republican said he had been swindled by a dishonest business man and was aghast to find out that they guy could get away with it wanted to see stiffer regulations to prevent such things from happening. When Senator Marty asked him if he would be willing the to cosponsor such a bill the Republican told him he couldn't do that because he was ideologically opposed to greater regulation but he knew that this was an issue that Marty had worked on.
I don't think that is totally the case. For example look at the uproar by self-professed conservative / libertarian posters even on this board in regard to cuts to NASA. Republican legislators are still looking to bring home bacon. Even Ron Paul has earmarks.
The Republicans have been In Nuclear Option mode on voting "No" since the House Republicans took the stand on TARP, even before Obama was president.
The Republicans were in an unusual situation in that they knew that Democrats didn't need Republican votes to pass it so while several Republicans endorsed the idea of a stimulus package in principle, McCain during the campaign had talked about one, they could afford to vote against it. That still didn't stop it from having goodies that benefitted Republican districts. What the Republicans have been doing is something that Ron Paul has done for years. He includes earmarks in spending bills even though he votes against the bills. His reasoning is that it is his ideological duty to oppose the bill so he votes against it but since it will pass anyway he might as well take advantage of it. The situation now were the Democrats don't hold a supermajority changes things.
when one guy did it, it was okay. but now you have a unique situation where there is no such thing as a goodie and everybody voting no regardless. again, see stimulus package. see rick perry turn down stimulus, and then has to turn around and ask gov't for money for budget shortfall there are no goodies, that's the point. fed money for schools, obama trying brainwash our kids fed money for roads, obama trying to bribe our local gov't. the republicans have set up this environment, they have ran on this, their constituents have bought into it, and now they can't take anything, because if it comes from the fed, its tainted. you're right, there are always things (like NASA) that some republican districts will always support federal funding on, but they are becoming few and far between
Pretty much. Most folks here think America is a two party system and voting for a third party is a complete waste of time, and it really is unless massive amounts of people vote for that third party. As long as those two parties are hell-bent on screwing each other, nothing will get done. I hate this. A third party to vote for, or just viable independent candidates, would be great.
There is a difference between bipartisanship and bribery. The Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker deals were bribes.
Only one party is hellbent on screwing the other. Plenty of Democrats voted with Republicans during the Bush years. Obstructing at all costs is a brand new GOP strategy.
how many votes have senate dems had since the advent of the clinton years? have they ever had fewer than 41? so, according to Obama's formulation, senate democrats have always had "responsibility for governing." would you say they've lived up to that obligation?
Given that all sorts of things passed when they could have filibustered every single GOP agenda item at-will, yeah, I'd say they lived up to that obligation. On the flipside, the last Senate session had twice as many filibusters as any other Senate session in history.
Yes. I certainly haven't agreed with everything they've done, but they certainly participated in governing. They didn't just say no to everything the president/other party proposed. I can't remember a time there's been so much outreach to the minority party and there's definitely never been a time that the minority party has been universally obstructionist as this one is.
REALLY? Linky? I believe you, but want to know more. I had no idea. Are you sure it's not just Joe Lieberman?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ilibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php That's the last Congress. I can't imagine how many we had in 2009 when it seemed to really ramp up.
