by Frank James
So much for bipartisanship.
That's how the failure of President Barack Obama's effort to get Republican support for his $787 billion economic stimulus package is being interpreted.
But the president was always trying to run against the tide of history so he probably never had as much of a chance as he first imagined. It's not bipartisanship but partisan rancor that's as American as apple pie.
James Morone, a Brown University political science professor, makes that very point in a New York Times op-ed:
A snippet:
Only a few months after his first election, George Washington dropped by the Senate to solicit advice about a treaty -- but all he got was a loud and agitated debate between the senators. Already they were breaking into factions. Washington, who believed that partisan strife would be "fatal" to the new nation, marched out with what one observer called "a discontented air of sullen dignity."
Now it's President Obama's turn. He seems eager to put aside small political differences and to restore a culture of cooperation in Washington. But it's going to be a long, hard effort because, well, that golden bipartisan era never existed.
Many people have the misimpression that today's partisanship is about as unseemly as it gets. It isn't. They don't know their history. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina beating to a bloody pulp Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts in 1856 right there in the Senate chamber, now that was ugly, much worse than the anatomically impossible feat Vice President Dick Cheney urged on Sen. Patrick Leahy.
Morone mentions another incident which demonstrates just how charged with partisanship the atmosphere in Washington has been over the years.
Harry Truman tried, for a time, to float above the brawl but, during his election campaign, he too found his partisan voice to the whoops of "Give 'em hell, Harry." He got plenty of partisan hell right back the next year when he proposed his Fair Deal program of full employment, education aid, pro-labor legislation, civil rights and national health insurance.
On the very first day of health care hearings, Senator James E. Murray, Democrat of Montana, called on all sides to abjure the words "communistic" and "socialistic" out of respect for the president. Robert Taft, a Republican, interrupted: "I think this bill is the most socialistic measure ever proposed seriously to the Congress." Murray eventually shouted, "If you don't shut up, I'll get these officers in here to have you thrown out." Taft walked out, and national health insurance died in committee.
The good professor recommends that Obama give up on the holy grail of bipartisanship.
History, not to mention the Republican rejection of his stimulus package, offers Mr. Obama a clear guide: Pay less attention to the other party and spend more time -- much more -- persuading America to embrace what you believe.
Judging by the White House's plan to get the president out into the country at least once a week to sell his agenda, it looks like that's exactly the course Obama plans to follow.
Comments
The Repuglican idea of bipartisanship is "do it our way or we're going throw a tantrum like a petulant child".
The great thing about this is that Pres Obama reached out to the Repugs and they bit off his hand. So what happened after this you might ask? Well, then the Repug congressional approval ratings, that were already in the tank, dropped even lower in the tank.
Pres Obama and the Dems should continue to do this from now on, they should publicly reach out to the Repugs and let them hang themselves on their own bitterness.
Posted by: civil war guy | February 17, 2009 5:43 PM
Are you serious? Barry is the most partisan politician ever. This must be a satirical piece.
Posted by: Jacque | February 17, 2009 6:15 PM
I heard an interview with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (my rep) a couple of days ago. His answer to "what are the republican doing?" was "digging their own graves."
Dig away!
Posted by: Larry-T | February 17, 2009 6:43 PM
Will someone point out to me how bipartisanship is a problem when one party can get every thing they want. With the RINO's in the Senate, democrats get everything they want. To point out republicans and say they are petulant [sp] is to be whistling as you walk through the graveyard. And objecting to ideas that go against your every fiber is also not petulant...not that it matters
Posted by: R Po | February 17, 2009 6:43 PM
Someone needs to make the point that the democrats need no republican votes to get everything they want. With the RINO's in the Senate, bipartisanship is not needed at all. Except to make the party that can pass anything it wants have someone to point to and say "aha, we had bipartisan support!"
I would add that it is not petulant to object to items politic that are totally against your convictions.
Posted by: R Po | February 17, 2009 6:46 PM
Obama is a liberal Chicago partisan Il. Democrat and all this talk of governing in a bipartisan spirt is a figment of his political imagination and hyped by the slobbering Obama MSM as they continue to bash all opposition to a lefty, liberal agenda. You won, so govern! Quit expecting conservatives to support this agenda for political cover as it falters with clueless, helter skelter abandon. Democracy allows all to voice their opinions, even the minority. Have at it, its Obama's and the Democrats economy now!
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 17, 2009 6:49 PM
I do not recall this excuse EVER being made on behalf of Bush 43, 41, or Reagan. Funny how these historical references are made on behalf of democrats. I believe it is called rationalizing.
Posted by: john | February 17, 2009 7:01 PM
You're right civil war guy,he did meet with the GOP to remind them that "he won". So tantrum or snotty winner what's the difference?
Posted by: vla | February 17, 2009 7:07 PM
As a former GOP voter for 42 yrs. I was a total supporter of Pres. Obama for one reason. I saw him as a centrist President who might take the best of the left and the best of the right, while leaving behind the FAR LEFT and FAR RIGHT ideologies.
The only bipartisanship this country needs is from the moderates on both sides to get together. The out-spoken voices from the far right and far left need to wake-up, shut-up and go to work for all Americans, not just their base.
Posted by: TJ | February 17, 2009 7:12 PM
It speaks volumes when the combative, bitter angry mob of obstructionist Republicans mutter of wishing failure for Obama (i.e. the USA) and gearing up their party for an election cycle that is TWO YEARS AWAY. Now, who is out of touch with the country?
Posted by: tdub | February 17, 2009 7:19 PM
As civil war guy says, the advantage of trying to be negotiate with Republicans is that when they refuse, Obama looks the better for it. But trying to please the economic incompetents who've tripled our nation debt in eight years and turned a surplus into the larger deficit in history has a cost. As Mark M. Zandi, economic adviser to McCain recently pointed out, every dollar in tax cuts results in less than a dollar of recovery while every dollar spent on food stamps and unemployment benefits generates $1.60. So by adding tax cuts to please the Republicans the stimulus has been made less effective and more wasteful. Hopefully the damage caused by trying to cater to them won't cause it to fail, but if it does, we know where the blame belongs.
Posted by: Edward Virtually | February 17, 2009 7:22 PM
No, Bubba Porter; it's your economy we must fix.
That's a pathetic rant, by the way. Too bad that's the way Republicans always think when a Democrat is in the White House. Really a shame, that you still buy into that Newt crap.
Posted by: Flo | February 17, 2009 8:05 PM
So if the Republicans in Congress don't want to participate, let them stay home and forfeit their salaries.
Oh and the blame it on the meida is another good one. What a myth!
Posted by: mort | February 17, 2009 8:45 PM
EV,
Spot on. Tax cuts have their place, but not at a time like this. BO was bipartisan in his approach to the bill and eventually caved to the foaming mouth obstructionists. No stimulus package in history has proven to be the cure-all. But I hope they have learned from the mistakes. Unfortunately, the package probably had to be twice the size it is to work, but that's behind us now.
Posted by: Bubba ✔ | February 17, 2009 9:22 PM
R Po, the problem with you Republicans is that you just don't get it.
While you and your fellow Republicans see it as a virtue to "object to ideas that go against your every fiber," everyone else sees it as obstructionism in our nation's time of need.
It doesn't help that Republican ideas about tax cuts for the rich and deregulation are what got us into this economic mess in the first place.
Posted by: Quippy | February 17, 2009 10:22 PM
Funny how the followers slobbered over the "decider" for years and are offended by we won. Ha Ha Ha ho ho!
Let,s see......and why did "we win"? It could have been that you called yourselves "conservatives" but weren't....It could have been that America grew tired of the politics of hate.....Now...you might say you have found yourselves and are now "conservatives" again.....but certainly haven't changed your politics. 2010 won't be a good year for republicans either.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2009 10:31 PM
Bi-partisanship is a word that should get under your skin and irritate you if you gave it much thought. The word essentially refers to the cooperation of TWO parties despite their differences. It does not mean that parties should set aside their political differences in a spirit of cooperation. The word to describe that phenomenon would be NON-partisanship. No, bi-partisanship means cooperation on points of common interest. The very thought of bi-partisanship is absurd precisely because there are NO points in common between the political views of the Republicans and Democrats.
.
The same is true of non-partisanship. Both Republicans and Democrats have jettisoned the gold standard for non-partisan cooperation: adherence to the Constitution. Both seem to view it as optional and advisory only. It used to be that politicians in this country knew they had to settle their differences within the bounds of the Constitution’s limits on government and its protection of individual rights. The great lights of old counseled that government should be liberal with freedoms, stingy with bills that burden the public; a friend to all countries, but military allies with none. That was the substance of Washington’s Farewell Address to Congress. It was wise advice. We will only see political brawling until and unless some common understanding is restored.
Posted by: John W. | February 18, 2009 4:13 AM
People paleeze! We all know that it is Bill Clinton's fault that the Republicans will not work with Obama.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | February 18, 2009 7:00 AM
Many republicans are reasonable people and support Obama. They came to see the the direction the republican party had gone was way to far to the right.
Far right republicans do not really care about truth, they lie if it is in their best interest; especially if it can hurt a democrat in any way.
Far right republicans did not and do not respect the constitution.
They love America but hate many Americans that don't agree with them; and that's most Americans.
Well, America has spoken and America did not want the republican party to lead.
So, If you can't help solve the problems you created, get out of the way.
America, love it or leave it!
Posted by: America, love it or leave it! | February 23, 2009 2:20 PM