What is bipartisanship for? - The Washington Post

There’s a lie many people in Washington tell themselves and the public, one that goes like this: Though Democrats and Republicans disagree on many things, they should be able to come together to solve critical problems, if they approach each other in good faith and put country over party.

These days, that lie is told by many Republicans, much of the media, and even some key Democrats. As we consider a massive infrastructure bill, it’s being repeated with increasing frequency.

On infrastructure, congressional Democrats are working hard to negotiate with the opposition even though the two sides seem far apart, with Republicans advocating a much smaller bill than Democrats want. Meanwhile, Politico reports that the administration’s plan is to talk to Republicans, but “with more skepticism and firmer deadlines” because the president “believes action is more important than bipartisanship.”

Which raises an important question, especially for swing Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) who want to be seen reaching across the aisle: What exactly is bipartisanship for?

It’s the kind of fundamental question that seldom gets asked. We just accept that bipartisanship is good, and a bipartisan bill is better than a partisan one. But why is that?

After all, it’s not as if Republicans have secret knowledge they’ll only share if the bill is crafted by both sides. Bipartisanship advocates sometimes claim cross-party cooperation produces wiser and smarter bills, but there’s no reason to think that’s true; Republicans are free to offer all the ideas they want, and whether they wind up voting for the bill won’t change them.

And from the standpoint of substance, any particular provision is either good or bad on its own merits regardless of who supports it. The wisdom of spending $17 billion to improve ports and waterways, as Biden has proposed, has nothing to do with whether zero or one or ten Republicans vote for the bill of which it’s a part.

Still others argue that bipartisan bills have more stable support over time, but there’s not much evidence that’s actually true; what makes a program resilient is how popular it is with the public. The reason Republicans haven’t satisfied their long-held desire to privatize Medicare is that seniors love their Medicare and seniors vote. It’s not because people remember how many Republicans voted to create the program in 1965.

And on infrastructure, part of the point is spending money in as expeditious a manner as possible. It’s not as though ten years from now a Republican government will say, “That bridge thousands of people drive over every day was built because of a bill that passed without Republican votes; for that reason, we are tearing it down.”

One strange implication of the fetishization of bipartisanship is that the public values process over substance. But what lawmaker thinks their own constituents would prefer an infrastructure bill that fixed half the roads, bridges, and sewers in town but passed with support from both parties to a bill that fixed all the roads, bridges, and sewers in town but the opposition party opposed?

Then there’s the political reality that no one should forget for a moment: While Democrats might like to tell voters that they transcended our differences and achieved bipartisanship, that’s not what Republicans want to say.

What they want to say is that Washington is a mess and can’t get anything done.

So rather than asking Democrats so often when they’ll be willing to compromise, the onus should be on Republicans to convince bipartisanship-minded Democrats (and everyone else) that they’ll be willing to act against their own political interests to join with Democrats and pass an infrastructure bill. Because that’s what they’ll have to do.

In an age of polarization and nationalized elections, there will never be a situation where the passage of part of the president’s agenda will be good politics for the opposition party. It will just make the president look successful. He’ll get the bulk of the credit, not them.

Their party’s path back to power — and to the survival of its individual lawmakers — is paved with gridlock and failure. They want the public to be disgusted and angry about what happens in Washington. Everyone joining to solve problems isn’t what will get them a midterm sweep. And they know it.

The more high-profile the bill, the stronger the incentive for Republicans to oppose it. And even if this bill became bipartisan, that wouldn’t make bipartisanship more likely in the future; the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more urgent will be Republicans’ need to deprive Biden of victories and convince voters that Washington doesn’t work and change is needed.

There are a few members, including Manchin, who have built bipartisanship into their brand — they have to make a big show of seeking it for their Republican constituents. And if Manchin wants to argue that he sincerely believes the GOP’s ideas to be better, he can do that — but he hasn’t. He objects to a provision here or there in Biden’s proposal, but he doesn’t need Republicans to do that.

So he and any other Democrat working to get an agreement with Republicans have to reckon with the likelihood that yet again they’re being Lucy with the football. They’ll negotiate for as long as they can and then in the end none of them will vote for the bill.

But you know what? That’s fine, as long as Democrats aren’t suckered like Charlie Brown. What matters above all is whether they solve people’s problems. Let’s hope they don’t forget it.

Read more:

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
May 04, 2021 at 02:21AM
https://ift.tt/3nHKWYr

What is bipartisanship for? - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update