I sometimes dream of writing a Republican-to-English dictionary for members of Congress. A Devil’s Dictionary of modern politics where I explain that in today’s GOP jargon, "justice" means "prolonged and possibly unjustified detention," "freedom" means "the U.S. is free to build permanent bases in your country after blowing it up" and "bipartisanship" means "GOP by any other name."
The buzz word of the last several weeks, as Congress plods its way through the stimulus bill, is "bipartisanship," and like "justice" and "freedom," it’s quickly becoming a word devoid of any meaning. A political slogan, if you will.
The intense focus on bipartisanship is understandable given the emphasis Barack Obama placed on the concept during his campaign. The president has barely been in the White House long enough to unpack, however, and the press (and Republicans) are already quick to claim that by pushing for passage of the Democratic stimulus bill, the president has tossed "bipartisanship" to the wayside.
I will confess to breathing a sigh of relief when the president, after days of letting the GOP dominate the discussion on the issue, finally began forcefully defending the stimulus package himself. But this predictably frustrating process, whatever its outcome, provides an opportunity for me to draft that first dictionary entry on "bipartisanship," in the hope that Democrats will abandon it entirely.
It’s not that Republicans shouldn’t be invited into the White House for cookies and conversation, or that the more sane and moderate of the lot shouldn’t be treated with respect and their opinions solicited.
I take no issue with the type of bipartisan process the president emphasized during the campaign. It’s the myth that a bipartisan solution calls for a bipartisan process that I think should be damned into the ninth circle of political hell (which, incidentally, is right below the D.C. cocktail circuit).
That conclusion is the result of a deeply held belief I have that Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.
Fixing our broken health care system, ending the war in Iraq, increasing funding for education, improving our infrastructure and preserving the Constitution are all universally applicable policies. Every citizen, red or blue, rich or poor, young or old, swing voter or not, benefits from such policies aimed at the greater and common good. Nancy Pelosi has used the word "nonpartisan," and that likely is the more accurate descriptor. But at their core, these policies benefit Republican and Democrat alike.
On the Republican side, Republican policies cannot give rise to bipartisan solutions. When the core philosophy of a party is that government cannot work and should do as little as possible, that philosophy benefits only those who have the resources necessary to sustain themselves regardless of whether the government is massive or whether it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub. From the chant of tax cuts at any cost to the fanatical focus on depriving the neediest of resources under the banner of "entitlement reform," Republican governance is aimed simply at helping those who need help the least.
The fundamental flaw in clamoring for a bipartisan process in light of the above is the erroneous belief that the fruit of any open-handed endeavor is necessarily a bipartisan (and universally acceptable) solution. One need only look in the rear view mirror to disprove such a naive notion. It has been the most bipartisan of processes that have sprung forth the most odious and partisan results.
The Iraq War resolution, passed thanks to Democratic support in both chambers, has served only to profit the war industry that operates unbridled in the GOP's shadow.
The bankruptcy bill, heralded as a bipartisan victory, was a victory only for the corporate interests that form the very heart of the Republican Party.
And of course, the Patriot Act, kumbayaed into existence with photo-ops galore, was the perfect embodiment and enactment of Republican governing philosophy: power trumps principle, and a government trumps its people.
The end result of these and myriad other kabukis of "reaching across the aisle" is that the political parties rarely met in that aisle. Rather, it was inevitably the Democrats, who reached out for the GOP's extended hand like a child blithely reaching out to pet the dog that has twice bit him, that were thereafter yanked to the right.
It was there, on the Republican side of the field, that Democratic objections were whittled down to mere splinters, and it is there where this process--this hideous process lauded by the press as the beauty of proper governance --created a climate that only benefits a class of people that looks eerily similar to the Republican base.
At the end of this hand-holding process, what have Democrats gained? When the byproduct of bringing both sides to the table is a bill that is 98% Republican and 2% Democratic, the only thing to be gained is the illusion of effectiveness draped over the coffin of true progress.
Behold, then, the malformed offspring of bipartisan "process"—a "compromise" in which the only thing that gets compromised are Democratic principles.
It is those Democratic principles, however, that offer the most bipartisan (or nonpartisan) solutions.
If "bipartisanship" then is to be part of this new era of politics, let it be a relentless loyalty to bipartisan or universally-applicable solutions. Let's abandon this disastrous fixation on a "bipartisan" process in which the now-minority Republicans hold veto over Democratic policies.
Republicans should be consulted, and their support should be solicited. But the process leading up to a bill's passage shouldn't be about making a bill more Republican or less Democratic. It should be about getting the votes for a Democratic proposal. Period.
Democrats must shake off this stale stench of the minority that still wafts about them. They need not cling to the vessel of bipartisanship as if there were no other manner by which to reach the shore.
They need to realize that their efforts are buoyed on the backs of some 68 million strong that voted in favor of bold Democratic principles. As several Democrats (including the president) have noted, the American people voted for change. By selecting a man labeled as the most liberal Senator to the White House and by strengthening Democratic majorities in both chambers, they rejected the Republican policies that have left Americans alone to tread water for so long.
Abandoning the type of bipartisan process that serves only to dilute Democratic policies is the right course. It may be counterintuitive, for Washington has done things so wrong for so long, but traveling relentlessly towards bipartisan solutions is the best way--perhaps the only way--to right this ship and set our nation on a better course for generations to come.