For now, here is my case for bipartisanship:
Solomon Yue, a member of the Republican National Committee in Oregon, effectively described the fundamental need of his party when he said, “articulating a political philosophy is equally important as applying it consistently.”[1] Because Republicans need to articulate and apply their principles as Mr. Yue suggests, I firmly believe in the necessity of the party’s cooperation with President Barack Obama on a bipartisan basis. To best articulate and apply their principles, Republicans must engage in bipartisanship for the benefit of their political ideology, their party’s long-term health, and the functionality of the United States government as a whole. To make the wrong decision by rejecting any notion of cooperation with the president would mean the continuation of a long and painful spiral of political brinkmanship fueled by a conflict-hungry and polarized media and American public. Bipartisanship, despite being rarely conducted in a spirit of fellowship across gulfs of opinion, should lead to a needed reaffirmation of American values and trendsetting as one of the world’s most dynamic and healthy democracies.
Claims to Compromise
The first key reason I believe Republicans serve to benefit from bipartisan work with President Obama is the president’s willingness to compromise. President Obama’s policy agenda contains three main centrist elements that make bipartisan cooperation from the GOP worthwhile. In foreign policy, the president followed through on policies such as troop increases in Afghanistan, protection of some wiretapping operations, and an increasingly hard line on U.S.-Iran relations that are all supported by the Republican platform. In energy policy, President Obama put forward proposals to allow for nuclear energy loan guarantees, expanded offshore drilling, and clean coal power initiatives, all of which are issues espoused far more by Republicans than Democrats. Finally, in economic policy, the president passed tax breaks for job creation and promised incentives to small businesses and loans to community banks, both issues supported by Republicans. If the Republicans cooperate on these issues, then they can lay claim to victory on certain policies and strengthen their ideological foundation for long-term direction in their platform.
Adding to the benefits of Republican compromise with President Obama is his renewed efficacy as the nation’s policy leader. Emerging from the shadow of a Democratic Congress that assumed the face of domestic policy, the president recently “took charge, and started doing all the things he ought to have been doing a lot earlier.”[2] A bitterly divided Congress with approval ratings dipping as low as 14% in a recent CBS poll is not the place for Republicans to begin efforts at bipartisanship. Instead, looking to a president with renewed control over policy issues who is also willing to compromise is the best option for the party.
Fiscal Conservatism and Moderation
The second key reason the GOP should cooperate with President Obama through bipartisanship is the benefits the party would reap in electoral politics in the long run. While this may seem counterintuitive, given the current political climate of the United States, an examination of trends in the electorate substantiates the claim. When presenting an image of obstructionism, typified by Republican members of Congress waving Crayola marker-made signs from Capitol balconies to protest health legislation, the GOP plays directly into the hands of antiestablishment anger and inflamed anti-Democrat rhetoric. Staunch Republicans argue that capitalizing on such anger with broad and radical promises of dismantling government programs and dramatically reducing taxes means success in the 2010 midterm elections. Indeed, the Republican National Committee and different ad hoc conservative organizations around the country considered implementing, and did implement informally in some cases, a checklist for lawmakers to test their conformity to hard line ideology, with the end goal of purging “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) from the political ranks at all levels of government. While I agree that there would be short-term gain from this approach, the Republican Party could not sustain support from such antagonism, as the movement would lose momentum soon after economic recovery and greater stability set in after 2010.
Instead, the party would be best served by the bipartisan appeal of moving to a pragmatic center-right stance. As young people in the party’s evangelical base become less socially conservative and more pluralistic[3], other issues of importance to conservatives like economics and the role of government will have increasing relevance in the future. By working more flexibly with President Obama, the GOP can tie itself to long-term policy issues like the reform of government entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. As these programs face an impending lack of sustainability and associated government debt rises precipitously, a cooperative and solutions-oriented Republican Party could realistically frame the desire for less government and reduced spending in the context of such political discussions.
The American electorate would respond well to a fiscally conservative platform from the GOP in the future. Since the election of President Obama in November 2008, the percentage of the public “very worried” about their long-term financial future increased from 38% to 50%, according to a Associated Press/Gfk poll. The case of British politics illustrates the ability of a center-right group, like the Tories, to present a viable and pragmatic alternative to economic problems handled badly under the existing Labor government. The Tories project to win in called British elections in upcoming months. Furthermore, the Tories largely divorced themselves from far right radical movements like the British National Party (BNP), just as the GOP could do in 2010 by distancing the party from the radicalized Tea Party movement. While campaign platforms that appeal to the inflamed minority appear beneficial in the short run, bipartisanship and political moderation will assuredly help the long term efficacy of the Republican Party as an organization.
"Scratch My Back..."
The final major reason why the Republican Party should work with the president on a bipartisan basis is the benefits such an approach would bring to the functionality of American government itself. With the benefits of cooperation already proven, and the trends showing a tilt towards future fiscally conservative policies, I strongly believe that the GOP could buy political insurance for the future through bipartisanship. With the threat of filibustering from Republicans, Democrats used parliamentary techniques like budget reconciliation to bypass the need for cloture, and with Republican blocking of presidential nominees, which crippled organizations like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the party is not establishing a productive precedent for the potential of acceding to the majority in 2010 or 2012. In the operation of Congress, quid pro quo and reciprocity are fundamental values. If Republicans continue obstructing legislation, Congressional Democrats will have every incentive to do the same if they fall to minority stature.
Not only will bipartisanship restore the value of legislative reciprocity and pave the way for a brighter future for a Republican political agenda in Congress, it will also unclog other pathways to action in the government. Unwilling to compromise and using harsh political statements to berate Democrats over healthcare legislation, Republicans in many ways shut themselves out of the lawmaking process. Without sufficient GOP input into the reform, a succession of alienated Republican governors and state attorneys general promised to block the implementation of new state-based health policies from Washington. The drawing of lines in the sand in this way will only lead to a conflict over federalism and a protracted and widespread battle over the issue in the court system. Bipartisanship, therefore, operates as a preventive measure for long and expensive conflict in other pathways of political change. I firmly uphold the value of such preventive measures to save time and funds, and therefore see an even greater necessity for Republican bipartisanship.
Consideration and Conclusion
Before concluding, I must respond to an underlying critique that bipartisanship from the GOP is equivalent to “selling out” the party’s core values. Considering my previous points, bipartisanship upholds Republican core values far better than refusal to compromise does. If Republicans wish to turn their values into policy, my contentions show that bipartisanship upholds more conservative policy from a Democratic president, a national trend of fiscal conservatism, and the ability of Republican lawmakers to implement core values in the future.
The great political philosopher John Stuart Mill advocated political cooperation when he said, “it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the truth has any chance of being supplied.”[4] While my beliefs on the necessity of bipartisanship for long-run health of Republican ideology, party sustainability, and governmental functionality will not come to fruition in a world where political strategists want to exploit the trends of the moment to win a single election, it is important to present firm and logical arguments for rationality in the American political scene. If Republicans cooperate with President Obama on a bipartisan basis, not only will they be more able to articulate and apply the principles advocated by Solomon Yue, they will also bring to light greater political truths, as Mill believed, leading to a stronger and more dynamic policy future for the world’s premier example of a strong and dynamic democracy.
[1] Fund, John, “Wall Street Journal Political Diary” December 31, 2008 http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/1956-Oregon-delegate-Solomon-Yue-makes-WSJ-quote-on-GOP-revolt.html
[2] The Economist, “Now What?” March 25, 2010 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15770733
[3] Allen, Bob, “Researcher: Young evangelicals shun 'conservative' label, embrace 'justice'” May 14,2009 http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4077/53/
[4] Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty” London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869
No comments:
Post a Comment