|
|||
|
E.J. Dionne Jr.: We’re Not Ready for BipartisanshipPosted on Jan 8, 2007WASHINGTON—We are not even two weeks into the new year, and the nation’s politicians are already caught up in a deep contradiction between words and deeds. The incongruity involves “bipartisanship.” Few words have been repeated more often by leaders of both parties and President Bush since the new Congress took power. All of God’s children are for bipartisan solutions, bipartisan consultations, bipartisan civility. Commenting on Iraq in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece last week, Bush wrote of building “a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.” That very phrase suggests how meaningless bipartisan talk can be. The fundamental divide on Iraq is precisely over whether the United States has an interest in fighting much longer, and whether there is any strategy that could, by a reasonable definition, “win” the war. That’s especially true since the president has been steadily defining victory down, to the point where we don’t really know what he means by “win” anymore. And if bipartisanship is what matters most, there is far more bipartisan accord on finding the best way out of Iraq than on escalating the war. That’s what the Iraq Study Group report showed, and it’s the message being sent by a growing group of dissident Republican senators. Are politicians simply lying when they use the word bipartisan? My hunch is that they really think they mean it, since every politician wants members of the other party to acknowledge the wisdom of his or her ideas. Advertisement Politicians are talking about bipartisanship because they know that the middle-of-the-road voters who were so important to the outcome of the last election care far more about problem-solving than ideology. It’s a good instinct. But bipartisanship works only when there is sufficient agreement on the definition of the problem being solved and the urgency of solving it. The ensuing arguments and negotiations can then focus on the best means for reaching a shared goal. For example, it is imperative (in my view, at least) for the United States to make sure that every American has health insurance. If there were broad enough agreement on that objective, Republicans and Democrats could haggle in reasonably good faith about the best means to achieve the result—how big should government’s role be, how much should be left to the market, and how much leeway should states have to create their own programs. We need to have that discussion someday. At the moment, alas, the commitment to universal coverage is simply not broad enough, meaning it will take hard political struggle and not just consensus-building to get something done. There are even times when bipartisanship can lead to bad government and incoherent trade-offs that violate the public interest. The classic instance involves one party winning special-interest tax breaks in exchange for the other getting a special-interest spending program to its liking. A live case is the president’s demand that a badly needed increase in the minimum wage be paired in a bipartisan way with yet more business tax breaks. Democrats would be fools to give in to the tax-break blackmail. In the unlikely event that such breaks could be targeted properly, why should employers of low-wage labor get benefits that other businesses don’t? In any event, new tax changes should be part of a larger effort to reform the tax system and, in light of the budget deficit, to raise revenue. Democrats—yes, with the bipartisan help of pro-labor Republicans—should have the courage to pass a clean minimum-wage increase and dare the president to veto it or his Senate allies to filibuster it. Honest to goodness, I truly prefer consensus, civility and problem-solving. But if there is one thing worse than the absence of bipartisanship, it is a phony and ultimately unstable consensus that sells out everybody’s principles. For better or worse, we have a lot of fighting and arguing to do before we can enter the gates of a truly bipartisan paradise. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By brad, January 10, 2007 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for detailed article.
Report thisBy gopindrag, January 10, 2007 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
what does the zombie president call bipartisanship?
Brains….more brains….....must have more
Report thisBy mite, January 9, 2007 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well I am so glad to see that the U.S. House got one thing done today, H.R. 33.
We have another holiday to celebrate in June. We all can celebrate the Free Masons. Such an honor, I thought it was a good start to 2007 to advertise the Freemasons 33 degrees in the H.R.33 title of the bill.
Oh what a christen country we have here in America to honor such a religious organization.
I feel so good now, knowing my masters have finally created a day I can celebrate their existence, and dictatorship over the people.
Thank You Congress and our leader Pelosi.
Report thisBy KatieL, January 9, 2007 at 11:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Another thing that politicians could agree on is the termination of global hunger. It would only cost a mere $19 billion, according to the Borgen Project. This in nothing compared to the more that $300 billion spent in Iraq so far. It’s time we focused on the Millennium Goals, which were agreed on by every nation, and which include putting an end to global poverty.
Report thisBy rabblerowzer, January 9, 2007 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Praise God and Pass the Ammunition
Since the day Reagan lied middleclass Americans into accepting trickledown Reaganomics as gospel, Republicans have waged a blitzkrieg class war like a campaign by Genghis Khan. They have attacked and slashed middleclass incomes wide, deep and many times. Yet the moment Democrats mention raising the minimum wage, a rinky-dink solution to economic disparity, Republicans scream Class War!
When you consider that freshman congressmen start out at 165K a year, four times what the average American earns, its clear that our lawmakers are lot closer to the plutocratic class than slobs like you and me. So dont expect Democrats to mount a fierce counter offensive against the Plutocracy. We have no leaders on our side, and with the exception of FDR, never did.
Other than the suggestion that we burn down the government and start all over again, I cant offer any solutions for swimming out of our economic quicksand. Our Corporate Masters are outsourcing American jobs and importing illegal aliens faster than you can say laissez-faire equals Economic Cannibalism. Whatever we do, we better do it while we can still afford to buy ammo.
Report thisBy mite, January 9, 2007 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remaines seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of. Change in the air-however slight-least we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” Justice William O. Douglas
As our propaganda media-press continue smoke screening the truth and directing our attention to the middle-east our country is now a fascist state. This Congress is only a tool for fascism controlled by an enemy within.
Just take one example; have we ever taken the time to ask ourselves why our so-called representatives collect the medical, and benefits they get and the rest of us have to explain why through our labor, and god given rights we deserve the same.
I’ll tell you if one looks at the benefits that Congress, and government employees’ receive through our labor, I truly am envious and upset with all of us in this country.
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, January 9, 2007 at 8:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
While I am skeptical about just about all of the rhetoric of bipartisanship currently out there, I reserve some of my skepticism for rhetoric about shared goals and problem solving. While there is no doubting that we are now all in a monstrous POT AU FEU of problems, my skepticism hinges on the premise that, if we are too focused on teleology, we can lose touch with why we are trying to solve those problems in the first place. Remember, Robert McNamara was a problem solver, PAR EXCELLENCE. He brought to the White House the best problem-solving methods and skills that the Rand Corporation had to offer; and much of THE FOG OF WAR had to do the blinders that those methods and skills imposed on his thinking.
So I would like to propose that bipartisanship would be better served, not by shared goals, but by shared NORMS, where the ultimate of those norms is the text of the Constitution. If we want to sort out all the problems that need to be solved, then we should begin with the extent to which the current Executive Branch has made so much progress in undermining that Constitution (often with the consent, if not collusion, of the Legislative Branch). If the new Congress can, as a bipartisan body, restore the rights and processes specified in the Constitution, even when its text is open to interpretation, then they will have made great progress in getting this country working again with that blend of unity and diversity of which we once were proud.
Report thisBy DennisD, January 9, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If bipartisanship means sharing equally in the corruption of our political system both parties are already there.
Report thisBy jon eden, January 9, 2007 at 4:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Seems to me that our bipartisanship is at its root about two different approaches to problem solving—doctrinaire vs practical.
I believe the day is approaching when this bipartisanship is going to melt away but don’t think it is going to call for a celebration. I think it is going to be because our problems have become so severe that a majority of Republicans are going to see the necessity of joining Democrats in the application of reason (vs doctrine.)
Perhaps global warming is going to be at the forefront of this trend.
JonEden at yahoo
Connecting the Dots: From human behavior to ecosystem collapse http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Report this