The morality of bipartisanship
Pragmatism, Legitimacy, and Fraternity
Pres. Obama promised and thus far has failed to bring bipartisanship to Washington, D.C. Today he renewed the effort by attending a gathering of House Republicans.
Few, if any leaders contest bipartisanship’s value. It is one of those “golden” concepts of American politics, which Sam–our resident political consultant–can maybe tell us more about. What values, though, does it embody or further?
1. Pragmatism
To the extent that a proposed bill has value, it’s passage is a good thing. If one party does not have sufficient votes to enact a valuable bill without the other’s support, bipartisanship enables the bill’s passage. In this case, the value of bipartisanship is extrinsic or consequentialist, depending on the value of the law it enables, rather than inherent to the concept itself. It prevents legislative gridlock. One concern is that it requires watering down legislation to ensure it passes. But passing a decent law is better than not passing a supposedly perfect law. Bipartisanship gets the job done.
2. Legitimacy
Did the President go too far?
During his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, President Obama called out the Supreme Court for its ruling last week on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
As the Washington Post describes, “The justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. Except for Alito. “Not true, not true,” he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, “That’s not true”) as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.”
Both the President’s statement and Justice Alito’s response have gotten much reaction. So did the President overstep his bounds? Was it a protocol breach of separation of powers? Or was it Justice Alito’s “you lie” moment?
-Marc
More polarized than ever
This is interesting – and unfortunate. A new Gallup poll released today suggests that the American public is more politically divided than ever, at least when measured by Presidential approval ratings. The percentage gap between Democrats’ and Republicans’ average approval of Obama is a whopping 65%, topping the previous record held by Clinton of 52%. 88% of Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing while only 23% of Republicans approve.
A year ago, Barack Obama spoke of a new, post-partisan era in Washington in which our common American values and aspirations would finally overcome the petty divisiveness of politics-as-usual. Wonder what he thinks now?
-Colin
Why did Brown win?
Republican Scott Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election yesterday to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. The seat was held by Kennedy for over 40 years, and the state is one of the “bluest” – going to Obama in 2008 by 26 percentage points. How did this happen?
There are two competing story lines, both having to do with our favorites – principles and their application to practical politics. The first is a story of too-quick and too-radical change; Obama was elected as a transformational figure with no real vetting by the media or public, and his administration is moving too aggressively to change the fundamentals of our economy, social services, foreign policy, and culture. The Republicans are winning, now, because the American people (ugh I hate using the phrase “the American people,” as if we all march in lock-step) see Obama for what he is – a leftist in a center-right nation.
The second story line, promoted by liberals, is that the Dems are reaping the rewards of weakness and inaction. Obama ran on the premise of fundamental change – we can’t get better policy until we change the way Washington works. Yet after a year of big bank bailouts, little to no reform of the financial, health insurance, or pharmaceutical industries (even with bills intended to do just that), escalated wars, and hesitance on gay rights and global warming, the Obama Administration seems unwilling to deliver on its promises. The Republicans are winning because the Dems are staying home.
So, as I’ve suggested before, either Obama is an over-active radical lefty, or he’s a corporate-sellout centrist waffler. Which is it, and how is it that both stories continue to thrive?
-Colin
I promise, America
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Karl Rove argues that Pres. Obama has broken many core campaign promises, specifically, reducing the deficit and federal spending, not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration, increasing taxes only on those making more than $250,000, opposing government-run health care, and broadcasting health care negotiations on C-SPAN.
What is the moral relationship between everyday promises and campaign promises? Are they the same thing? When can one break a campaign promise legitimately? More on Friday.
-Jake
Should Harry Reid step down?
Words that matter
Remember when Washington rancor used to be directed at the vicissitudes of health care reform? Ah, those were the days. Now it’s back to politics as usual. You know what that means–attacking inappropriate conduct. A few months ago it was Joe Wilson speaking lies to power. Last week it was Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Already caught in what pundits regard as a tough reelection battle at home, Reid landed himself in trouble when it emerged that a new book on the 2008 presidential campaign quoted Reid as suggesting that then-candidate Obama could be the first black president due to his fairer complexion (“light-skinned”) and because he had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Unfortunately for Reid, the word “Negro” was left behind as politically incorrect several decades ago, as did most of the appropriate contexts for the way Reid referenced President Obama’s skin color.
Reid has already issued a public apology, and has called the President to apologize directly (which Obama has publicly accepted). Should he also step down? Read more
Obama’s governing philosophy
A Daily Dish reader makes an important point about the relative ambiguity of Obama’s philosophical roots and the political need to convey a compelling theme:
Obama’s philosophy could be called “pragmatism,” but the problem is that while pragmatism might reorient how things get done in Washington, it won’t reorient the country’s political philosophy because it won’t connect with the public …
Voters knew where Reagan would come out on an issue, even if they disagreed with him. If voters ask themselves what Obama will do to address a problem, and the answer is “Whatever government programs/regulations he can get thru Congress,” they will both disagree with him (he’ll “betray” liberals and anger conservatives) and have no sense of what compromises he will make on subsequent issues.
In an age where government actions is needed, Obama needs to have a simple hook with voters to explain his philosophy, something along the lines of “Not big or small government, but effective governance.”
I think it’s right to just suggest that at this point, liberals and conservatives would probably agree that Obama’s approach involves something like “pragmatism,” compromise, and political charisma – but many on both sides would likely view the resulting policies as failures. Liberals saw his election as an opportunity to enact needed basic changes – repeal DOMA and DADT, pull out of Iraq, pass universal health care (with at least a public insurance option), and adopt significant measures to combat climate change. Thus far, Obama is batting a very low average in the eyes of so-called “purist” progressives.
While some moderate conservatives are praising the president’s piecemeal approach to change, many on the right instinctively oppose the initiatives of a Democrat-dominated government, and as this reader says, are likely to view even severely compromised policies as leftist encroachments.
Obama is left with no real ideological “base,” then, and must rely instead on the strength of his practical methodology. But is “realism” enough to sustain popular support in America? My sense is that pragmatic successes are the stuff historians and political scientists appreciate, but that political victories in real time require the kind of compelling philosophical message that FDR, JFK, and Reagan (arguably) exemplified.
-Colin
President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
Just one day after I posted on compromise and President Obama’s positions of health care and climate change, The New York Times goes and publishes a news analysis piece on just this issue. The article titled: “Compromising on 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins” begins: “President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, likes to say that the only thing that is not negotiable is success. The last 48 hours offered a case study in how the president applies that maxim to governing.” The article then goes into a detailed discussion of how and why Obama compromised on health care and climate change and how this helps us understand his governing philosophy.
Then on Monday, I get an email from the President (I’m going to assume this went to a much wider distribution list than just me), claiming victory on health care report, arguing that “as with any legislation, compromise is part of the process…. we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America.”
Both are interesting reads. If only the reporter and the President would acknowledge their inspiration.
-Marc
The skies are already friendly
But what about the ground?
Just in time for the likely spate of holiday travel delays, the Obama administration has anno
unced that passengers cannot be kept on a delayed airplane for more than three hours before the airline must get them off the plane (or “deplane them” in awkward airline parlance). My first though when I read this was, “What a useless rule–no one sits on the tarmac for three hours.”
Apparently I was wrong. According to the Associated Press, the first six months of 2009 saw 613 flights sitting on the tarmac for over three hours with passengers on board.
No more. Now an airline must provide food and drink after two hours, and will be fined $27,500 per passenger for each flight that exceeds the new limit. The rules apply to domestic flights, although American carriers that fly international flights must voluntarily decide limits. Foreign carriers are exempt. There’s also an exception for security or safety concerns voiced by air traffic control.
What are we to make of this new regulation? Read more
Exit strategy or “No Exit”?
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass (who was also the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning under George W. Bush) likens our commitment to Afghanistan to Sartre’s play, “No Exit,” in which the characters cannot seem to escape one another.
“Hell is other people,” one says. Why is this relevant? Because in both Iraq and Afghanistan, America finds itself involved (some might say trapped) in difficult situations (some might describe them as hell) where its ability to exit successfully depends largely on its local partners.
In order to successfully “sell” this war to an increasingly war-weary public, the administration has emphasized its intentions to leave the region sooner than later. Unfortunately, Haass reminds us, “conflicts are easier to get into than out of.”
-Colin
Share us