Partisanship Is Required

I like this from Yuval Levin:

Like most presidents, Barack Obama came to The White House hoping his unique gifts might overcome party divisions in Washington. And as with most presidents, it has not taken him long to discover otherwise. His second week in office saw the most distinctly party-line vote on a major piece of legislation in the House of Representatives in many years, as exactly zero Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, while all but 11 Democrats backed it.

The bulk of the fault surely lay with the bill itself. Hardly a model of post-partisan pragmatism, it was a kind of greatest-hits collection gathered up from two decades of Democratic pet projects. Assorted union giveaways, boosts to favored federal programs, regulatory fixes, grants to constituent lobbies and other sundry odds and ends were all shoved together into a mess of a bill, designed more to satisfy the longstanding demands of Democratic interest groups than to address the particulars of the economic crisis. Republicans felt no guilt in opposing it. Even some Democrats who voted for it were uncomfortable. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, explained the 11 Democratic defections by saying: "Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that"—suggesting, it seems, that the bill his boss sponsored was fiscally irresponsible.

The remarkable party unity on display on both sides was not a one-shot deal. The bumps in the Obama administration's start, from these legislative travails to a cabinet appointment process marked by controversy, have energized Republicans. Meanwhile, Democrats have united behind a "we won, so get over it" approach—refusing to bend until forced, even as Obama himself meets with Republicans and tries to charm them over drinks at the White House. Some bipartisan gestures have certainly gone over well—most notably the retention of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, which signaled continuity and moderation. But on the whole it seems clear that Washington is not about to heed Obama's call for a new post-partisan era in which, as he put it in his Inaugural Address, we might "proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

The persistence of partisanship is inevitable—yet it should not disappoint us. While bipartisanship has its virtues—it remains the best means of pushing through politically painful reforms—partisanship is not a vice. At its best, the partisan fray expresses the maturity of our political life; and even at its worst (which is to say, most of the time) it is a better way to govern ourselves than the pursuit at all costs of an elusive technocratic consensus.

The president's familiar pining for such a consensus expresses in part his desire to get his own way, of course, and as a liberal Democrat his way is itself partisan. But it also reaches back to an ancient republicanism that condemned parties in politics as a means by which permanent factions pursued their private interests instead of the public good. For as much as they are beholden to interest groups, however, large modern parties are really giving form to disagreements about the public good. They express a genuine difference of opinion about what is best for the whole. And precisely because that split runs very deep, our two major parties actually turn out to be pretty effective expressions of public views about a wide range of issues.

It is not a coincidence that people who believe in traditional values also tend to believe in a strong military: both views express an underlying premise about the intractability of human nature. It is not a coincidence that people who favor a large welfare state also tend to believe that diplomacy can resolve most global conflicts: both views express an underlying sense that most human problems are functions of an imperfect distribution of resources.

Our deepest disagreements coalesce into two broad views of human nature that define the public life of every free society. In a crude and general way our political parties give expression to these views, and allow the roughly like-minded to pool their voices and their votes in order to turn beliefs into action.

To ridicule these disagreements and assert as our new president also did in his inaugural that "the time has come to set aside childish things" is to demean as insignificant the great debates that have formed our republic over more than two centuries. These arguments—about the proper relationship between the state and the citizen, about America's place in the world, about the regard and protection we owe to one another, about how we might best reconcile economic prosperity and cultural vitality, national security and moral authority, freedom and virtue—are divisive questions of enormous consequence, and for all the partisanship they have engendered they are neither petty nor childish.

They are the substance of the political life of a healthy and thriving democracy, and Barack Obama, whether he likes it or not, has just thrown himself into the middle of them all. We can all join him in the pursuit of the public good. But in a democracy that pursuit includes arguing over just what the public good might be.

Amen. We could use a lot more partisanship in Washington. Bipartisanship is overrated, after all, and rarely causes anything but hardship.

There's my two cents.

Bipartisanship Is Overrated

What's the big deal with the word 'bipartisan'?  Why is it supposed to be such a good thing?

There seems to be some kind of self-affirming warm fuzzy that occurs when politicians use the word 'bipartisan' in relation to any particular piece of legislation or action.  They seem to think it's the holy grail of political accomplishment.  What they don't seem to realize is that Americans are starting to get wise to them.  Thanks largely to the New Media, a wave of understanding is spreading through the American public that when something is done with 'bipartisan' support, it usually means that American citizens are getting screwed.

Take a look at some recent examples.  Amnesty was strongly supported by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, but also by Republicans including Senators McCain and Graham, and even President Bush.  The results of amnesty would have been disastrous for American citizens in the form of vastly expanded government services, which would all have been for by American taxpayers.  Add to that the increased criminal element flooding into the country (think public safety here), the decreased border security (think terrorism here), millions of new low-cost job-seekers (think union opposition here), and the blatant disregard for American law by the very same people who wrote it (think any law-abiding American here), and it's no wonder this 'bipartisan' bill got lynched by Americans of all stripes.

Judicial appointments was another hot issue in recent years.  According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the authority and responsibility of appointing federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.  The Senate is to provide an up-or-down vote in an 'advise and consent' role.  You can think of the Senate's function in this process as a check that prevents any President from appointing his idiot high school drop-out nephew to the highest (or any) court in the land.  If the judge being appointed is competent in his or her record and ability, the appointee should be given a "yes" vote and moved to their new station as quickly as possible.  However, during George W. Bush's presidency, a 'bipartisan' group of 14 Senators (seven Republicans and seven Democrats) stepped forward to prevent any appointment from coming to a vote unless their personal views met with the approval of the 'gang of 14'.  This 'bipartisanship' ground judicial nominations almost to a halt, and is costing Americans from having court cases handled by competent federal judges in a timely manner, adding more delays and costs to an already-swamped court system all over the country.  And don't forget the effects it has on these judges' livelihoods, being stuck in employment limbo for months or even years.

And how about President Bush's 'new tone', where he pledged to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats?  He reached out first, letting Ted Kennedy write the new education bill; that got Bush one of the largest increases in government spending in recent history, despite Bush's supposed conservative (which means less government) platform.  In return, Kennedy has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush throughout his time in the White House.  American citizens got a more bloated government and even more power funneled into the agenda-driven brainwashing factory that is the Department of Education, which has the education of children at the bottom of its list of priorities.

These are just three of many issues that illustrate the dangers of 'bipartisanship'.  The reality is that those who stand on principle lose just as much through 'bipartisanship' as they do through actual losses.  Consider the education bill mentioned above.  Not only did Bush violate his principle of smaller government, but he also ended up losing whatever position he might have tried to hold on the educational system in this country.  In return for his compromise, he got only negatives: insults, attacks, and political opposition on literally everything he tried to accomplish.  What good was 'bipartisanship' for Bush on this bill?

Stop and think about this for a moment, because this is the key.  By definition, a principle is a fundamental doctrine or tenet, and as such should not be diluted in any way.  It is the core of belief that a group of people can rally around, the common ground that people can stand on when things get tough.  Any compromise to a principle essentially negates its importance, and a party that prizes no consistent principles is a party that will wander aimlessly into oblivion.  You hold your particular principles because you think they are the correct ones.  You want your principles advanced, and you want others to be persuaded to see your view of the country and agree with it, right?  By definition, then, you are partisan.  Everyone is.  [Caveat: moderates are those who refuse to follow any principles at all, and they should therefore not be followed anywhere!]  Bipartisanship, then, is compromise, implementing some of your principles alongside some of your opponent's principles, which are presumably the opposite of yours.  The question, then, is why would you want the principles opposite of yours to be implemented at all?  By invoking 'bipartisanship', you are by definition watering down your own principles, settling for a glass that's not just half empty, but half empty and poisoned.

Political parties should be more interested in advancing their constituencies' core principles rather than in practicing 'bipartisanship'.  A leader is elected for a reason, and that is to advance the principles of the voters who elected that leader.  The leader represents those voters, and it is the voters' expectation (and the leader's responsibility) that those principles are advanced, even if it means acting in a partisan way.

So how will anyone gain enough support to get anything done?  By focusing on persuading more Americans to understand and agree with a certain set of principles.  As more voters are persuaded to support those principles, those voters will elect more leaders who support those principles, and when more leaders support those principles, those principles will be implemented more easily.  That's the way our representative republic government was designed to work - with persuasion and partisanship.

The point is not to cooperate, but to WIN.

A perfect example is when former President Ronald Reagan once said, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."  Beautiful!  It worked, too, didn't it?  Reagan applied his partisanship in a persuasive way that captured huge majorities -- from both parties -- of the country along the way to winning a number of political battles, including the Cold War.

It's extremely difficult to accomplish, especially for conservatives in today's toxic liberal media atmosphere, but it must be done.  It's been done before, and there's no reason it can't be done again, but it has to be done right, and that means without compromise (i.e. 'bipartisanship').  If elected conservatives compromise, they will not only forfeit their base's support, but also their reason for existing as a political party.  If they don't stand on conservative principles, all that's left is liberalism, and why would anyone pick a Republican liberal over a Democrat liberal?  The Democrats have been doing it much longer and are much better at it.  If the Republican party becomes the Diet Democrat party, what's the point?

Let's see an example in real life.  Let's say I'm an elected conservative who believes the principle that lower taxes stimulates the economy and is in the best interests of Americans.  If a liberal opponent proposes a tax increase of 10%, am I upholding that principle if I, in the spirit of 'bipartisanship', counter-propose a tax increase of only 5%?  Sure, I didn't allow the bigger tax increase, but I still allowed a tax increase.  Here's another way to think about it.  There are two sides to this principle - higher taxes, and lower taxes.  The liberal holds the principle of higher taxes, and the conservative holds the principle of lower taxes.  If we negotiate down from 10% to 5%, who remains true to their principle?  While the liberal may have gotten less than he wanted, he still got higher taxes; on the other hand, I completely failed whether I got 10% or 5%.  So, why should my constituents, who elected me on my promise of supporting the principle of lower taxes, continue to support me?

They shouldn't.

This kind of compromise -- 'bipartisanship' -- never benefits the conservative unless it is advancing purely conservative principles.  For example, the bipartisan support of the War on Terror (remember, way back in 2001, both parties supported President Bush) was an advancement of the conservative principle of strong national defense.  That was good bipartisanship, but it was a sadly rare example, and very short-lived because liberals soon realized they were the ones who had compromised.

This is one of the biggest problems in politics today - very few of our elected conservative leaders are willing to stand on their principles, instead stumbling through a series of half-hearted 'bipartisan' motions.  This is why so many Americans are so thoroughly disgusted with our elected leaders today, and why those same leaders are so vastly out of touch with Americans.  This is also why many of the leaders of the conservative movement are not elected leaders at all, but rather personalities in the New Media.  They can stand on their principles because they work in the free market of ideas, where conservative principles find a great deal of traction with American citizens.  If more of our elected leaders would figure this out and develop a spine, we'd be back in business.

Bipartisanship is overrated.  In fact, we could really use a lot more partisanship.  Coupled with the appropriate persuasion of our principles, there is no limit to what steadfast partisanship could accomplish.

There's my two cents.