Tweet
At a press conference the other day, President Obama seemed clearly annoyed that bipartisanship is not working like he thought it should:
“Bipartisanship can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that’s the price of bipartisanship, right, but that’s sometimes the way it gets presented,” Obama said.
The problem is that Obama is just wrong. By definition, for a piece of legislation to be bipartisan, some members of the minority party must vote for it. This gives the minority party the sole ability to make a bill bipartisan. It is one of the only important things they can do while out of power.
As legislators, the members of the minority have the right, and some would say the duty, to vote against anything that does not meet their standards. They don’t need to reach a compromise to help achieve the goals of the majority party. The minority party–in this case the Republicans–can set whatever high price they want from Democrats in exchange for GOP votes.
Personally, I think the demands of the Republicans are completely unreasonable, but I don’t question the right of Republicans to make their demands. The important thing is that Democrats don’t need Republican votes. They are the party in power, and can move forward with passing their top legislative goals on their own.
The problem for the past year has been President Obama’s pathological obsession with bipartisanship, and he clearly has a warped understanding of what bipartisanship really is. It is not achieved by finding some middle ground between your ideas and the other party, it is simply about doing as much as the minority party requires you to do in exchange for their votes. Obama made a mistake by focusing more on bipartisanship than passing the best, most popular legislation he can.
The secret to getting bipartisan support for a bill is not to constantly give in to the demands of the minority party without getting promise of their support in return, the secret is to make the bill so popular that the other party fears the political ramifications of not voting for the bill.
Obama spent months making changes to try to make the bill popular with Congressional Republicans. These changes, like dropping the public option and adding the excise tax, killed the bill’s popularity. They were the wrong audience. If, instead, Obama had spent that time focusing on making the bill as popular as possible with the American people, he would have had a better chance of getting Republican votes in the end. Many Republicans would have a tough time voting against a bill that polls in the high 60s, but no Republican has a problem voting against this current bill, which polls in the high 30s.
9 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Goodness, yes! It’s getting to the point that I’m yelling at the TV when I see Obama talk about considering the Republicans’ ideas.
If he really wanted bipartisanship, he would have given them 1 invite, if they didn’t then move on. If they complain, he can always say I offered and you didn’t consider it.
You look like a winner who gave the other guy a chance.
But this endless bipartisan overtures only make him look a loser. Why would someone do that? Maybe he wants to use that as excuse for the failure and repubs don’t want to take the bait.
Very astute Jon (something Obama is not BTW). Anyway thier (the white house’s) hope is that the “lack of bi-partisan support” excuse for their incompetence will sell to the base. It will not. Americans expect the president to lead not make excuses. Unfortunately all of the cries that “he’s untested” are proving true… Obama is incapable of leading. Gives a good speech but can’t get the job done. Now we hear the excuses.
Agree with you except
I believe they expect it will sell to independents who they view as swing voters. They can’t be stupid enough to think it won’t cost them votes among the f’ing r____ed base.
I think this political calculation is looney, but then …
That’s no secret. That’s how Johnson got Republican votes for Medicare. And that’s how Obama could have gotten some of their votes for Medicare for All had he pushed for it. It wouldn’t have been possible for Specter (then a Republican), Snowe, Collins, to resist HR 676 had the President pushed for it and mobilized Medicare for All supporters.
Obama thinks that he’s pragmatic and non-ideological. But his devotion to bipartisanship always triangulating on what he thinks is a “middle-of-the-road” solution to every program is itself an ideology which has nothing to do with finding real solutions to problems — the real beating heart of pragmatism.
“The problem for the past year has been President Obama’s pathological obsession with bipartisanship, and he clearly has a warped understanding of what bipartisanship really is.”
No, he’s RIGHT about what “bipartisanship” is–it’s just that what that is, is bad. What “bipartisanship” really has meant for the D-Party is that individual politicians can cast actual neoliberal economic and pro-war votes, and still run as so-called “Democrats.”
This enables Chuck Schumer, let’s say, to cast the (neoliberal and pro-war) votes he wants to cast–for campaign cash, for his own personal preferences, for the preferences of his upper middle class and wealthy base in NY–while running with a D next to his name for the rubes who are not served by this crap, who seem continually taken in by the magic letter.
Said “Bipartisanhsip” is the way the power players in the Party function at all.
Bam’s reputation as a speech maker fits right in here–the D-Party has long done one thing, largely going along with the Rs, while hypocritically talking out the other side of its mouth to its base, hypocritically blaming Republicans for things they’re actually doing themselves.
That’s what bipartisanship *really* is. But now the D-Party is fully in power and they can’t hide their own actual platform any more. They’ve gone so far right over the years, that they need the Rs to cover them and (at least) “share the blame” in order to have any chance at pulling the wool back over the D-voting rubes’ eyes.
Kudos to the Republicans for forcing the hypocrites out into the open.
“Obama spent months making changes to try to make the bill popular with Congressional Republicans. These changes, like dropping the public option and adding the excise tax, killed the bill’s popularity. They were the wrong audience.”
The Rs are *never* the audience or target of “bipartisanship”–they serve as cover and take the blame with the D-voting rubes.
Good for them for refusing to be used by self righteous D-Party hypocrites who talk out both sides of their mouths.
“That’s no secret. That’s how Johnson got Republican votes for Medicare.”
We’re a long way from Johnson.
That’s nonsense. The only thing they’re lacking is the guts to be real Democrats.