The uses and limits of bipartisanship
Many Democrats seem to view bipartisanship as a trap for naïve centrists. This view is understandable given the way Republicans play political hardball. But the right response to hardball is to use bipartisanship strategically, the way Republicans do, not to eschew it altogether.
There are several advantages to pursuing bipartisan agreements. First, many people hate political conflict in Washington. They want bipartisanship. And rightly or wrongly Democrats ran on it, and campaign promises matter.
Second, bipartisanship is sometimes a path to modest legislative victories. To be sure, many victories achieved through bipartisanship will be modest and disappointing. I doubt the recently passed gun control legislation will accomplish much. But even a highly imperfect compromise on an expanded Child Tax Credit or the Electoral Count Act would be hugely important. When they are within reach, Democrats should grasp them.
Of course, it is not clear that a bipartisan effort to expand the CTC or fix the ECA can succeed. But this brings us to the next advantage of bipartisanship: failed efforts at bipartisanship are an important tool for educating voters about the obstructionist tactics and extremism of Republicans. This is essential for attracting cross-pressured voters and expanding the Democratic coalition.
In the case of abortion, the Democrats could propose a bipartisan settlement on abortion that would strengthen the real reproductive autonomy of women and appeal to 70% or more of the electorate. Simple rhetorical shifts that acknowledge the qualms many voters feel about abortions later in pregnancy and that focus on conservative concerns about government intrusion into private decisions could reassure cross-pressured Republicans that the Democrats respect their values and can be trusted to do the right thing with unified control of the government. When the Republicans reject any reasonable compromise, their capitulation to extremists would become apparent even to some voters who do not pay much attention to politics.
The downside of bipartisanship is that when it works, it obscures the real differences between the parties and the extremism of Republicans. Bipartisan support for making Juneteenth a national holiday allows Republicans to pose as racial moderates; bipartisan renewal of the Violence Against Women Act allows Republicans to pose as reasonable supporters of women’s rights. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell shrewdly encouraged his more moderate members to negotiate gun control legislation with Senate Democrats following the Uvalde massacre to obscure the extremism of Republicans on this issue.
This doesn’t mean that successful bipartisanship is always wrong, but it raises the question of how Democrats can use it to their advantage.
There are no one-size-fits-all answers here, but one possible strategy is to state an interest in bipartisanship but to declare that Republicans are extremists who refuse to compromise. In the case of guns, the Democrats could have said “There is no point in having bipartisan negotiations with Republicans on guns. We know they have been captured by the gun lobby and oppose even the most sensible measures to reduce gun deaths. Of course, we would be happy to be proven wrong. If the Republicans are really interested in gun control, they should give us draft legislation. We are not interested in more empty talk.” If the Republicans actually produced legislation Democrats could denounce it as inadequate but pass it anyway. This would clarify the differences between the parties, and it would put Democrats in a better position to denounce the Republicans the next time someone shoots up a school with an automatic weapon.
On issues like the Child Tax Credit, where Republican support is essential and failure to pass legislation is less likely to be seen as extreme, the case for working across the aisle is stronger.
I see absolutely no chance of any bipartisan agreement on abortion or the ECA. One quick glance at GOP actions regarding elections throughout states they control shows they have no interest whatsoever in giving up any weapon they may have.
Also, in terms of any women’s healthcare legislation (which includes abortion), there is no chance at all of any legislation mandating abortion that could get past this Supreme Court.
The term is oxymoronic.
If the point is to not pass legislation to show GOP extremism I get it, but watered down things that pass just hurt the Dems electorally and do nothing to address real problems.
Eric:
– “one possible strategy is to state an interest in bipartisanship but to declare that Republicans are extremists who refuse to compromise. “
Gotta let them refuse first before saying they refuse to compromise (You may have implied such). We know nothing until we ask and then their position is stated. This is even if it has been rejected multiple times before. One can always state, given today’s event we thought there may agreement of some type or a proposal.
“downside of bipartisanship is that when it works, it obscures the real differences between the parties and the extremism of Republicans.”
True, but you are establishing a base from which to operate and grow from later. Accept a change and when it fails, remind them of your prior position and how it might have worked better. Forget nothing and remember who said what. On gun control, they have years of a foundation in place which can not be denied. We arrived at this state of affairs because of their obstinance.
“propose a bipartisan settlement on abortion that would strengthen the real reproductive autonomy of women and appeal to 70% or more of the electorate.”
Propose to establish a twenty week boundary. Establish causes for abortions, woman’s health, a girls age, etc. all things which are reasonable. Build from there.
“bipartisanship is sometimes a path to modest legislative victories. To be sure, many victories achieved through bipartisanship will be modest and disappointing.”
Establish a base from which to creep from to a point where the final piece looks less drastic or threatening.
There is nothing good about these measures. It should be hung like an albatross from McConnell’s neck. He is no leader. He is a little coward who hides behind statements of “the American People.” He speaks for a minority holding the nation captive to his whims.
We need to work on the Republicans who are not extremists where we can. If we can find some who will bargain in good faith, and not abandon their own deal because the party demands it. And we need to stop talking to “Democrats” who only bargain in bad faith.
At this point I would need to see some results of the bargain being proposed before I would consider any Republican bargaining in good faith on any substantive matter. If you agree with a bill saying x,y,and z, then introduce it.
EYeah … fifty years of watching repubs bargain in bad faith I assume they’re bargaining in bad faith until demonstrated otherwise. Hasn’t happened very often. Not distracted by a pretty face either, Darth’s Daughter is Darth’s Daughter, as republican as Darth, speaks with as forked a tongue.
Best to hunker down in a Blue state and hope for the best.
It’s not like the rest of the country is going to come to its senses any time soon.
A Promising New Electoral Count Act Reform Proposal
National Review – July 21
the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Act, states that the role of the vice president in counting electoral votes is purely ceremonial
Washington Post – July 21