Obama's Failed Bipartisan Efforts

January 21, 2010 RSS Feed Print

President Obama took office pledging to end the rancor that was contaminating official Washington. A year later, it's clear that his effort has failed, just as it fizzled when George W. Bush said he would end the capital's divisions in 2001, when Bill Clinton promised to work with the opposition in 1993, and when George H. W. Bush pledged to create the "age of the offered hand" in 1989.

Political polarization is at least as bad as and possibly worse than it's been for a long time. Congressional Republicans are fiercely united against Obama on many issues. His healthcare bill received no GOP votes in the Senate and only one in the House. His proposals for slowing climate change and overhauling the energy laws have gotten scant Republican support, and his economic stimulus package from last year is still being fiercely condemned by GOP leaders. Of course, partisanship is not a one-way street. The Democrats took much the same approach, serving as relentless opponents of GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush for many years.

But today's divisions seem more extreme. "Polarization is the evil twin of partisanship," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers–the State University of New Jersey. "Partisanship is natural. People, for example, are asking fundamental questions about the role of government, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the vehemence. It's the personalization. It's the search for immediate political advantage. It's the volume and intensity of conflict." All this undermines the ability of legislators "to work openly [with members of the other major party] and not fear they are going to be seen as working with the 'enemy,' " Baker says.

Obama is accepting part of the blame. "That's what's been lost . . . that whole sense of changing how Washington works," he told People magazine in its latest edition. He added: "What I haven't been able to do in the midst of this [economic] crisis is bring the country together in a way that we had done in the inauguration" last January.

The most recent example of Washington's polarization was last week's extended confrontation over some poorly chosen and insensitive words from Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Spokesmen for the Democratic and Republican national committees and the parties' congressional and senatorial committees have been trading fusillades of invective nearly every day via news releases, E-mails to reporters, and interviews. "No question," says a Republican strategist, "political people think that if you take your foot off the gas, you'll get left behind. These people feel compelled to floor it all the time. We are operating in as hyperpolitical an environment as you can imagine."

A White House strategist adds that cable TV shows keep even minor controversies going as long as possible, on the theory that conflict and ridicule drive ratings. Adding to the sensational atmosphere are the bloggers, the twitterers, YouTube, and other social media.

Steele's case was bad enough. He used a derogatory term to refer to American Indians. But Reid's case was more explosive because it involved racial remarks about the president of the United States. Reid was quoted as saying in 2008 that then candidate Barack Obama had a good chance to win the presidency because he was "light-skinned" and did not talk with a "Negro dialect."

Reid quickly phoned Obama and apologized, and the president, while admitting that the remarks were "unfortunate," accepted the mea culpa. That wasn't enough for some Republicans, who called for Reid to resign as majority leader.

Obama and his aides say the administration will try to put all this aside and extend another olive branch. "The president is going to continue to reach out to Republicans," says another White House strategist. "He will give them a seat at the table. It's up to the Republicans to decide if they will accept his offer." For their part, Republicans say they will work with the White House. But so far, all this talk has seemed hollow and has produced little cooperation.

There is a larger problem. If the politicians continue their bickering and if the pundits continue to incite them, the country will be left with what most voters abhor, a prolonged stalemate in Washington. And that will generate more cynicism about the ability of the governing establishment to function, which won't be good for anyone. 

Tags:
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (23)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

President Obama has been reaching out so much he's left his base behind. During the Heathcare Debate The adninistation abandoned their base and gave away liberal policy positions like the public option and re-importation of drugs.

When the country overwhelmingly votes for a President and solid majorities in Both Houses, its a clear mandate for the country to go in a different direction. That would usually suggest that the party that just got routed move toward the other parties policy positions. Yes, elections have consequences, what that means is the country wants to change policy, therefore all those who remain after the election should expect Change.

The current slate of republicans decided to double down and vote against policy positions they wrote in the last session of congress. Simply because President Obama adopted them.

GcSwift on Huffpo of NY 5:03AM October 27, 2010

It continues to boggle my mind how the president -- whoever the president is -- gets blamed for whatever did or didn't happen during the administration that gets tagged as his, when he has 4 or 8 years to make any kind of difference, while the congress -- the perpetually reigning congress -- that has been in office, for what seems like a freakin' eternity, sits there for YEARS, DECADES, even, and gets little accomplished. I mean, please, how does a guy justify that? Sitting through, what, like 5 administrations, and the same problems are fought over year after year? At some point, don't you think they would get solved--since they're there to "help the Amurrkan people?" So, why are we still talking about the same stuff? I'm 48, and have been hearing about how the national debt will 'mortgage our children's future,' and how bad the health care system is, all my life!

Okay, there are your Johnsons, Kennedys, Dirksens, and a few others who have made their marks and brought something home to or actually served their constituencies--y'know, actually done something! Then, there are the jokers that have sat around, b#*&%*&g and moaning -- on both sides of the aisle -- but getting squat accomplished, that keep getting sent back year after year. How about term limits for Congress (and monetary penalties for the lemmings that keep sending them back!)? It's interesting how the "legislative" body managed to get term limits for the chief executive, but conveniently left themselves out. If after X-number of years, you've got nothing but noise to show for your tenure in the chamber, then clean out your desk! Of course, guys like that always manage to land on their feet in some high-salaried think tank, college or foundation. Help them get an early start on their next career of doing nothing.

Let's check that life membership on the Supreme Court, too, while we're at it.

tlynette of IL 1:49PM February 09, 2010

He lies about wanting bipartisanship. He blames the Republicans for everything and gives his own party a free pass when they are as responsible, if not more so.

Obama does not walk the talk. Republicans are only responsible in his estimation when they blindly agree to what ever he says. And as we have seen so very many times, if you wait a couple of days, he will reverse himself. Is it any wonder he has caused mass confusion in his first year?

Muser of NM is smoking peyote!

Fed Up of IN 3:16PM February 08, 2010

advertisement

Latest Video