Like any new president, Barack Obama needs some early legislative victories. And he started down that path last night with House passage, by a vote of 244-188, of his economic stimulus bill–albeit without any support from the Republicans.
But his lack of GOP support was not due to lack of effort. Even though his party controls a powerful majority in Congress, the president tried reaching across the aisle several times during the past week. Obama promised during his campaign to end rancor in Washington, and conventional wisdom suggests political harmony is the tune Americans want to hear.
But is it? Yesterday’s vote on the stimulus package also demonstrates the complexity of achieving something many Americans seem to support overwhelmingly–an end to partisan hostilities.
In today’s environment, finding this kind of agreement in Congress is far from a “win-win,” cost-free platitude. Forging consensus is messy, time consuming, and includes a wide array of non-obvious trade offs–particularly given the makeup of the current Congress. And while Americans say they hate political conflict, research shows they despise inaction even more. The new president is trying to get off on the right foot by attempting to accommodate congressional Republicans, but his efforts are being undermined by some of his allies. Unclenching partisan fists–especially those in his own party–may be harder than you think and may even undercut his drive for early legislative success. Here’s why.
First, there is the 800-pound donkey in the room. With large majorities in the House, Democrats have the biggest say in the legislative product. And while Mr. Obama may have an interest in compromise, most congressional Democrats do not. “We had an election on November 4 and the American people voted overwhelmingly for the approach being offered by the Democrats,” House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina said on C-SPAN last weekend. In other words, “buzz off.”
Second, each party in Congress is more ideologically unified and farther apart from the other compared to, say, 20 years ago. This reduction in internal diversity among both the Republicans and the Democrats means finding bipartisan consensus is hard and in some ways a zero sum game–possibly leaving everyone angry.
One senior GOP leadership aide told me: “Most of the Republicans that might have been tempted to vote for this package are now gone–they have been replaced by Democrats.” The same is true on the other side of the aisle. Republicans have replaced the conservative, mostly Southern Democrats of 20 years ago.
As a result, the costs of compromise are high. And Mr. Obama might find partially pleasing Republicans irritates a constituency he needs even more–his own party in Congress.
The political calculus for Republicans doesn’t really add up either. A House GOP leadership aide explained it this way: “Even assuming Republicans got 20 percent of what they wanted in a legislative package, you still hate 80 percent of it.” Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee voted against a bill in the Committee that included a few things they liked (business tax incentives) because they knew in the end it would be married up with things they hate (future government spending that won’t stimulate the economy). One veteran Capitol Hill reporter agreed about the GOP’s incentives: “The smart political vote back home is still no,” he said.
Finally, bipartisanship includes risks beyond annoying Democrats and not really pleasing Republicans. Political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse argue in their book Stealth Democracy that one of the prerequisites of bipartisanship–compromise–is not all it’s cracked up to be with voters. They present polling data showing that about six in 10 Americans believe “compromise” is equivalent to “selling out one’s principles.” About the same percentage say elected officials should “stop talking and take action.” So while conventional wisdom suggests Americans like bipartisanship, the sausage making process takes time and reveals lots of divisiveness–both things that turn off voters.
Finding bipartisan compromise sounds like a noble goal. Yet it might make more sense in a closely divided Congress. With large Democratic majorities and a public clamoring for decisive, quick action, it’s a goal that carries more risks than rewards for the new president.
President Obama certainly needs to keep the lines of communication open with Republicans and not let philosophical disputes devolve into personal attacks. In the end, if the GOP fails to give him support but believes its voices were heard, the White House should count that a victory.
Bipartisanship can manifest itself in many ways. In theory it sounds great. But in practice, it involves some considerable trade-offs. It doesn’t fit neatly with some of the president’s other broader strategic objectives. And while it may involve regularly extending a hand to the opposition, it doesn’t always mean getting their votes.
Gary Andres is vice chairman of research at Dutko Worldwide in Washington, D.C., and a regular contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
