This morning’s Politico was all over the political map, at least when it comes to the issue of bipartisanship in Washington.  As several colleagues on Capitol Hill have pointed out to me, an “Analysis” piece by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen appears on the front page under the title: “The Great Myth: Bipartisanship,” which pretty much says it all.  Yet on the very same front page, leading off a “Special Section” on transportation policy, is a piece all about how indispensable Secretary of Commerce and former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) is to Team Obama, because he “lends credibility,” “can provide invaluable insight” into the Republican side, and can tap into his network of Republican friends and former colleagues to win backing for the President’s agenda.

Front Page of this morning's Politico

Of course, I suspect the Politico editors may have been more aware of this contradiction than first glance suggests.  The fact that the articles are continued back-to-back inside the paper (at pages 13 and 14 respectively, where the LaHood piece is titled, “LaHood Brings Bipartisan Charm to Team) means either this was an intentional juxtaposition of two perspectives on bipartisan cooperation in Washington, or somebody at Politico’s editorial desk really needs a new prescription.

Actually, I am not sure the two pieces are as inherently at odds as one might conclude from the side-by-side headlines.  The “Great Myth” piece points out that while the American people want to see bipartisan cooperation and real results, specifically on the health care reform bill, members of Congress do little more than pay lip service to the virtues of bipartisan dialogue.  It goes on to suggest that part of the reason for this may be the increasing polarization of political districts, and even entire regions, such as the Northeast, which has lost 20 Republican House seats and six Republican Senate seats in the past decade.  In short, it’s a piece about the sorry state we’re in as a country, and not an attack on the importance of bipartisanship, per se.

The LaHood piece highlights some good news at a tough moment for bipartisanship in Washington.  President Obama, as we here at PSA know well, has long backed a bipartisan approach to important policy challenges, especially national security and foreign policy, where he identified “bipartisanship and openness” as part of his campaign platform and his governing philosophy.  In addition to appointing three Republicans to his Cabinet (LaHood, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates), he frequently brings Republican members of Congress to the White House for policy consultations and informal chats.

True, the President’s drive for bipartisan cooperation has not necessarily paid dividends in terms of Republican votes for his stimulus package, climate change legislation, or the proposed health care overhaul, but that is to be expected.  It will take much more time to work through the hostility built up over the past two decades, and to rebuild real working relationships, based on trust, between Democrats and Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Likewise, the White House should not expect bipartisan consensus on the toughest, most divisive issues that hit Americans in their pocket books.  Issues like health care, taxes, or entitlement reform are always going to be painful and partisan, because they draw on basic differences of economic interest and political philosophy.  Foreign policy and national security challenges, on the other hand, are more amenable to respectful, careful debate, objective analysis, and bipartisan action.

I could write a treatise here about the deeper causes and consequences of partisan politics’ invasion of the national security and foreign policy decision making process, but I’ll spare you.  For those interested, a detailed paper on the subject will be available shortly from PSA.  And I will present an overview of our recently completed research on bipartisan foreign policy and Congressional voting patterns at a talk on Thursday at the University of Maryland’s CISSM forum at noon, as well as in a noontime talk at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club on Friday, October 9.

No related posts.