A central point of President Obama’s presidential campaign was his promise to cultivate a spirit of bipartisanship as part of a “new kind of politics” in Washington. Less than one month into his presidency the notion of bipartisanship appears to be fading quickly.
This comes on the heels of all House Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against the House stimulus bill in protest of earmark spending projects that they consider exorbitant and ineffective to stimulating the economy.
Obama hoped to gain bilateral support for his plan and both parties expressed similar optimism early on. There is a consensus between both parties that a stimulus bill is necessary but the disagreement centers on how to spend the nearly one trillion dollars in play.
Having been spurned by Republicans and undoubtedly frustrated by their relentlessness Obama is now taking a sharper tone – criticizing “false theories of the past” and “petty politics” and reminding Republicans that he won the election.
Obama must be careful however because this approach could jeopardize his call for bipartisanship.
Recalling the previous administration merely distracts from Obama’s present platform of change and discarding the Republicans’ insights as false theories will only alienate them and narrow the spectrum of ideas heard in Washington.
Obama is right when he reminds Republicans that America elected him. But in choosing him Americans ratified his economic plan of a “net spending cut”- not the massive spending bill under debate the scope of which few imagined at the time of the election.
It appears Obama has missed a prime opportunity for bipartisanship by deferring to House Democrats. Had he taken the reins of the stimulus bill he could have placed his own stamp on the plan and presented a bill to Congress that would have reflected his bipartisan vision.
Instead the bill is spearheaded by Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who recently dismissed bipartisanship altogether as a “process argument” that distracts Washington from more important priorities. As a result igniting tensions between the two sides have hindered the stimulus bill’s progress and dampens the prospects of bipartisanship.
The president’s strategy has thus shifted from gaining support for a truly bipartisan stimulus bill to merely aiming for the handful of Republican votes needed to pass the bill.
Sen. John McCain R-Ariz. who has as much experience reaching across the aisle as anyone in Washington contended “I’ve been involved in a lot of bipartisan legislation around here but I guarantee you this is not bipartisan.”
Obama must not lose sight of his own goal of bipartisanship.
His call to put politics aside should not ask for ideological concessions but rather for both parties to meet in the middle. Democrats hold the upper hand but Obama must weigh his party’s political success against his bipartisanship promise.
Bipartisanship does not ask politicians to completely abandon their beliefs or their ideological commitments to their constituencies. That is neither realistic nor fair. True bipartisanship requires much more than rhetoric or cocktail parties. It involves something more than superficial agreements and promises.
Bipartisanship is instead a legislative compromise. Both sides must be willing to make sacrifices for the common good of the American people. Republicans cannot be expected to buy into purely Democratic ideas or vice versa; each must give and take.
The stimulus debate highlights each party’s priorities and concerns. Democrats for instance propose spending on infrastructure such as schools roads and bridges which is in line with the Keynesian approach.
Republicans on the other hand see the merit in supply-side economics and believe tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs both in the short term and long term.
In bipartisan spirit why not do a little bit of both?
If bipartisanship is the aim then surely the bill can be crafted so that it is say 60 percent acceptable to Democrats and 40 percent acceptable to Republicans – at least somewhat representative of the current political climate.
The current impasse centers largely on earmark spending projects. Obama has admitted that earmark spending is inevitable – but why not set a new standard of fiscal efficiency as part of his program to change America? After all good government depends on efficient use of taxpayer money. The stakes are higher than ever and Americans benefit most when each party holds the other accountable.
The ball is in Obama’s court. Will he stay true to the promise of bipartisanship that he has championed?