Bipartisan action, not rhetoric, needed
As Democrats took control of Congress yesterday there was much talk of bipartisanship in the air. The New York Times made the observation that this return to bipartisan rhetoric is a time honored tradition that quickly dissipates. It is true that both parties talk a good game in terms of bipartisanship. Everyone wants it. But when it comes down to the hard work of actually listening to the other side, we are frequently left wanting. Already I see that both parties seem to be returning to their time honored tradition of sidelining opposing views despite yesterday’s public commitment to civility.
Certainly there is blame to go around for both sides of the aisle. The two examples that come immediately to mind are the President’s upcoming Iraq plan and the Democrats’ plans for their first 100 hours of legislation.
It seems that the President will be announcing his new Iraq strategy next week. Many believe that a major component of this strategy will be a significant increase in troops. Most polls show that there is a bipartisan consensus amongst the American public that we need to be starting the process of withdrawing troops, not increasing them. The American public voiced its opposition to the President’s approach in the November elections. And, finally, the Iraq Study group presented its expressly bipartisan recommendation to start decreasing our military presence in Iraq and to put more effort into a political resolution. Despite these numerous calls for dramatic change, the change that the President will likely propose is one that has little bipartisan support. And it seems unlikely that the President will be unable to garner that support. Iraq is the key foreign policy challenge of the day that can only be resolved with bipartisan support. The President, however, seems to be convinced that he can push us through this difficult time simply with the support of his most loyal followers. It’s not going to work.
Of course, there’s blame to go around for the Democrats too. It seems that the Democratic leadership has decided that it doesn’t need to listen to the opposition to enact its first 100 hours of legislation. Of course, as a Democrat, I would be happy to see the party’s legislative agenda enacted as quickly as possible. To the victor should go the spoils, right? However, I also realize that this is the attitude that got the Republicans in the place they are now. We’re told that Republicans will be involved in legislating after the first 100 hours. I’m guessing, however, that as legislative progress happens it will be increasingly difficult to truly return to a process that involves input from both sides of the aisle. If you want to turn over a new leaf, you do it immediately, not later when it’s more convenient. This doesn’t mean that the resulting legislation is simply the average consensus position between the two sides. What it does mean, however, is that we have a change in the way that legislation is discussed and debated. The opposition party should not simply be locked out. They should at least have a seat at the table. I’m talking here less about outcome and more about process – a process which was broken under Republican control, and I fear will continue to be broken under Democratic control.
Related posts: