The recent immigration bill defeat has got me thinking a lot about what makes or breaks bipartisan legislation.  Clearly this bill was a prime example of a bipartisan compromise.  There were certainly parts of it that ran counter to my values.  Although I wasn’t a wholehearted backer, I realized that there were necessary compromises made.  Of course, neither side got exactly what it wanted but each side got enough of the elements that it wanted that it was willing to concede on others.  Isn’t this what compromise is all about?  In politics, not necessarily. 

In terms of what makes bipartisan legislation successful, this bill had many important elements.  It had the support of two icons of the different parties, Ted Kennedy and John McCain.  It also had the support of the President.  What’s more, the vast majority of the American people seemed to broadly support the major elements of the bill.  See this recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll on the issue.   It’s clear that most Americans see immigration as a major challenge for the country and that most Americans are also agreeable to the the types of compromises that the bipartisan supporters of this bill made. 

What they didn’t count on was the dramatic influence of the minority of Americans for whom this is their most important hot button issue.  The New York Times caught it well in their headline, “Grassroots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed.”  The problem was that after making necessary compromises neither side could motivate the grassroots to rally behind the legislation.  Such is the challenge of bipartisan legislation.  There were many people who could accept this legislation, but few who were thrilled about it. Clearly grassroots activists can be a powerful force that either tracks along with public opinion, or, in this case, runs contrary to it.  I was actually stunned when I read a quote from an anti immigration activist interviewed for this article who described his surprise at Bush’s support for the bill.  “I was stunned, really,” he said. Mr. Bush “has always been a person who stood for some basic human values, and now he’s going to give away the country.”  I wonder if this activist even realized the seeming contradiction he made.  Generally when we talk about basic human values we refer to values like compassion and empathy.  I hope that this activist doesn’t mean to say that racism, intolerance, and xenophobia are the basic human values we should be endorsing.

The New York Times Week in Review had a useful analysis about the difficulty of getting bipartisan compromise passed in Congress.  In thinking about bipartisanship in US foreign policy I think that this experience provides some useful lessons.  Probably most important, we must remember that although the most sensible compromise position might have the most backing, sometimes an adamant vocal minority can derail such a solution.  Those who endorse bipartisanship must be sure not to be caught off guard by these vocal minorities.  Granted, sometimes they have important contributions to the debate.  One might argue that one of the reason these vocal groups were so active on this issues is that they weren’t sufficiently consulted beforehand.  Perhaps another lesson learned. 

No related posts.