A timely front page article in the February 4th Washington Post provided desperately needed insight into the most misunderstood term in Washington today. Of course, I refer to the term “bipartisan.”
The media demands it. The political pundits love it. It polls extremely well–almost as high as “change.” It is antithetical to its ugly twin–“partisan.” And, the voters delivered a firm message they want more of it on November 4, 2008.
So, what does it mean?
The important take-away from the Post analysis was that an Obama-style bipartisanship is less about common ground and more about mutual respect and enhanced collegiality among members of Congress. As a former House member and assistant whip, I welcome this return to a more civil discourse in Washington, D.C. Hopefully, a more respectful environment means that nobody’s idea, bill, program, or initiative should be shot down simply because it emanates from the other party. The vast majority of voters expect their leaders to maintain this even-handed approach regardless of partisan source.
My objection occurs when this common sense view morphs into an entirely different concept–where the loyal opposition is expected to roll over simply because his or her party lost an election. Not that President Obama was wrong in stating that he now gets to do things his way because he (and his party) won the election. To the winner goes the spoils–in this case, an issues agenda Messrs. Obama, Reid, and Speaker Pelosi have advocated for years. It is an agenda of gigantic government, centralized authority, environmental extremism, and limited economic horizons. It is an agenda that has carried the day over the last two election cycles. It is also an agenda many Americans oppose.
So, what should Republicans have done? Just gone along because of a charismatic president and his persuasive ways? Signed off after a few slices of pork are eliminated from the pig? Or, continued to fight in good faith for what you believe are the fundamentals of a true “rescue package”: short-term safety net assistance, “shovel ready” infrastructure projects (don’t forget upgrades to sewage treatment plants), tax relief for those who actually pay federal income tax, and no pork. Last time I looked, federal programs of all types and sizes could be debated and voted on as part of an annual congressional appropriations process still in place.
Further, a proposed spending binge leading to a two-trillion dollar deficit is the worst possible time to get in touch with one’s bipartisan side. Here, getting out of the way to “prove” your bipartisan nature is misplaced emotion. It is also quite dangerous in light of the other serious items on the aggressively left orientated agenda being pushed on Capitol Hill today.
Despite the results of November 4th, many Americans reject a bipartisan acquiescence to policies offensive to even centrist sensibilities: civil rights for terrorists, the elimination of enhanced (not torture) interrogation techniques on captured enemy combatants, a newly minted “Fairness Doctrine,” the end of secret ballots in union organizing elections, a protectionist streak on trade, promises of activist judges, and trial lawyers gone wild. This is an agenda far out of step with (red and blue) mainstream America. And no media induced redefinition of “bipartisan” can make such proposals acceptable.
Sometimes, a bipartisan resolution is not a sound resolution. Sometimes, walking away from a deal is better than a bad deal. Those of us in the loyal (and growing) opposition should not be afraid to say it, either.
Robert Ehrlich is the former Republican governor of Maryland. He currently is a partner at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.
