7 Reasons Why Obama Bipartisanship Lives

February 17, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

For all those who have their knickers in a twist because Barack Obama has not waved a magic wand and melted the hearts of Lindsey Graham and Eric Cantor, here are a few reasons why it's a bit too early to pronounce the death of bipartisanship.

1. It's too early to pronounce the death of anything, for Pete's sake. Audacity hasn't been in office for a month. An administration that is still filling cabinet positions—much less dozens of deputy and assistant secretary jobs—and whose members are still trying to find the cafeteria is, in a word, inchoate.

2. If Obama-ism is anything, it has to be post-partisan. Audacity staked his claim on the American presidency with his "no-blue-states-no-red-states-just-the-United-States" speech in Boston in 2004. His popularity rests on the voters' belief that he is a talented pragmatist, who will get things done for them and, above all, not waste time with partisan rancor. It is who he is. He has to keep at it. He has no choice.

3. Team Audacity actually did pretty well on the stimulus. In the Senate, they kept all the Democratic centrists in camp with little fuss, including Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and the Udall cousins and the Dakotans and Jon Tester and the Virginia twins, and got the necessary Republican votes (with one to spare) to defeat the filibuster.

They accepted amendments and proposals from GOP senators (like Charles Grassley) who did not vote for the bill, but will remember the courtesy. (In the Senate, you didn't have the level of whining about being "locked out" that you had in the GOP cloakroom in the House.) And, let's face it, the magic number—60—in the Senate is everything, folks. Watching Audacity get to 60 is gonna be the ballgame for another two years—unless the blue dog Democrats in the House start getting restless.

4. Audacity has no alternative but to find votes where he can. There is too much coming at him, too fast. Let's see, now that the stimulus, child health care, reproductive rights and equal pay for women fights have been won, the White House can move on to...the auto industry, the banks, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the climate, China, trade, terrorism, Putin, energy, Supreme Court appointments, globalization, health care reform, nuclear proliferation, gay rights, entitlements and tax reform. On more than half of those issues, having Nancy muscle stuff through the House and hoping to pick up Susan and Olympia just won't be enough.

5. It is good for presidents to keep campaign promises, and the Republicans helped Obama do so. Am I the only one who was so naive as to believe that Obama's campaign vow to cut taxes was for real? And that packing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts in his first big legislative initiative was darn near a moral requirement, given what he pledged last fall? The tax cuts were not just concessions to the GOP, and some sort of shameful compromise—they were a president doing what he said he would do. Wake up, liberal pundits. Audacity should not be apologizing about the size of the tax cuts; he should be flying around the nation, taking high fives and crowing.

6. Republican intransigence might make good policy. Oh, I know we are all trained to think that the members of the other side are just a bunch of dumb galoots—but they actually represent our fellow Americans, who have good ideas, and legitimate interests, even if they come from another part of the country or a different line of work.

How one of my favorite all-time states—Texas—can be so thick-headed politically is beyond me. But there it is. You gotta love 'em, despite big John and Kay and W and the rest. Someday they will see the light.

And while I may not agree with what Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ultimately decides on off-shore drilling and carrying concealed weapons on national lands his immediate instinct—let's slow things down and see what we've got here—is good. Being reflexively anti-Republican is bad.

7. Finally, let's be real. The Republicans needed a week like they had. We have a two-party system, and the opposition serves as a check against majoritarian hubris, corruption and ideological folly. Which, given the track record of we muddle-headed liberals in the last 50 years, will eventually prove to be an invaluable asset for all Americans.

In the end, they lost. Even on Saturday Night Live. But surely we can all agree that it will be a particularly good thing if the newly-rediscovered and repeatedly-professed Republican commitment to soundly-financed government comes to define the GOP in the years ahead. (Though I'm not counting on it.)

On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.

Tags:
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Susan Collins,
Olympia Snowe,
Lindsey Graham,
Mark Udall,
Jon Tester,
Tom Udall,
Chuck Grassley,
Joe Lieberman,
Eric Cantor,
Barack Obama,
politics,
Ben Nelson

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

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

I think we can now say that Bi-Partisanship is DEAD.

THe dems need 60 votes for the health care crap bill and they will do ANYTHING.. i repeat they will lie, steal, cheat, bribe... do ANYTHING to get their 60 votes.

That is not bi-partisan if they have to finagle their OWN party to vote for shyte.

Obama is a cynt. Liberals are Fycks. And the writer of this article is a blind, puppet.

bill J of IL 6:55AM December 21, 2009

WE WON. Obama is a inexperieced politican recruited by the liberal democrates to further the entitlement socialistic society. Obama speaks great words but when comes right down to the nitty gritty President Polosi and Vice President Harry Ried are running the show. Welcome to new left wing government.

Neal of GA 10:58AM February 19, 2009

I'm going to agree that it's entirely to early to judge the Obama Administration's bipartisanship. In all fairness to Obama, he at least listened to the GOP, even if he was unable to convince his own party to adopt many of the GOP suggestions.

The problem here is actually the reverse problem of the GOP. With the GOP, we saw Bush's policies being ascribed to the entire party; with Obama, we're seeing his party's lack of bipartisanship being ascribed to him.

Furthermore, one bill is not enough to say that bipartisan is dead. We'll want to keep an eye on this, but without jumping to conclusions. After all, Obama's pre-stimulus moves showed a large degree of bipartisanship, such as including Senators McCain and Graham on several Cabinet position decisions.

So, the answer is: the House Democrats are the ones killing bipartisanship right now (they even failed to win over their blue dog members), not Obama.

I think it's really easy to get caught up in partisan politics right now, and that's being reflected in our representatives in Washington and in the American people in general. We're all very polarised, and it's really no one's fault, but it's affecting our collective ability to think clearly and objectively.

In response to a couple other commentators now,

Bill of NY - even if the GOP doesn't agree with the stimulus package, of course they still get a share of the spoils. We're in this as a whole, as a country. The differences of opinion across this country are what keep our politicians from going crazy with their agendas. The GOP made a major statement on this bill by making alternative bills (that were shot down), talking with Obama to get their ideas out there, and standing by what they believe in. They're going to protect the American people by not allowing the Dems to get carried away. Not to mention, they're in an identity crisis, trying to form an image for the future of their party.

Bill of STL - conservatives and liberals are no different in these regards. In a two-party system, you're always going to have polarised opinions and you're always going to have criticism. It happened the last 8 years with the Dems (and many Repubs) criticising Bush, and it's going to happen for the next 4 years with the GOP criticising the Dem majority and possibly Obama, depending on the choices he makes. We just have to hope that the moderates -- ie, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Blue Dogs, etc. -- are willing to do what it takes to move the country in the right direction by continuing to make decisions that are not necessarily party-line.

Mike of RI 4:53PM February 17, 2009

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Latest Video

advertisement