From time-to-time, I’ll be departing from the Knowledge Management subject matter of this blog to make a political comment. Sometimes, KM will be intertwined with a political post. But sometimes it will be all political opinion without any KM content.
President Obama’s pursuit of bipartisanship is doomed to failure because it won’t stop Republicans from losing elections. They know it, but he doesn’t.
Consider, will bipartisan compromise on foreign policy issues protect them against Democratic challenges in elections? Most Republicans are now in Red States whose voters are less friendly to Obama’s re-orientation in foreign policy than voters in Blue or toss-up states. If Obama is successful in foreign policy and the United States is clearly more secure, then the credit will go to him and the Republicans will be disadvantaged whether or not they have supported him. The disadvantage will be less if they have supported him then if they haven’t. But any Democrat running against such an incumbent will still be able to better wrap themselves in Obama’s mantle than the bipartisan Republican. On the other hand, if Obama is unsuccessful in Foreign Policy, then the bipartisan Republican is terribly vulnerable in Red State primaries where an opponent will certainly be giving him “we told you so,” until its coming out of his proverbial ears. The only position that decreases the Republican’s chances of losing is partisanship — opposition to Obama coupled with a clear Obama failure in Foreign Policy. If there’s failure, that position adds to the Republican’s chances of winning, while his/her risk of losing in case Obama is successful is less in Red States than it would be in competitive or Blue States.
Moving to domestic policy, right now only recovery really matters. Social issues are eclipsed. The world hasn’t come to an end because an Afro-American is now President. It won’t come to an end because Obama gets rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” However, folks will be sour if they lose their jobs, or can’t borrow money, or find that their real estate or stock holdings lose a significant percentage off their already substantially depressed values. “It’s the Recovery stupid.”
If the Red State Republican practices bipartisanship with Obama, and there’s a Recovery, Obama and the Democrats get the advantage. The bipartisan Republican has less disadvantage than the partisan Republican would have in this scenario, but that Republican might well have to face a primary challenge from an economic conservative, and even if a primary challenge is unsuccessful, the Republican then has to face a Democrat with an Obama wind at his back. If he/she runs too far to the left, the conservative base stays home. If he/she runs to the right, after supporting Obama, the Obama Democrat will point out that the bipartisan Republican can’t be as effective a supporter of Obama as the Democrat can be. In short, for Red State Republicans bipartisanship is a no-win alternative. Better to stick to the old time religion, hope Obama fails, and then ride the resulting wave of anger, or if Obama succeeds, lie about the extent of his success and hope that the desire of one’s constituents to continue to believe in the old-time religion will blind them to the truth and they will still reject the Democrat.
In short, Red State Republicans will have no interest in being bipartisan unless perceived patriotism overcomes self-interest. Here we’re talking about 1 or 2 out of every hundred legislators. What about Blue or Competitive State Republicans? Is the situation any different for them?
Certainly, but there are so few of them now. Not enough in the House to have an influence on outcomes and not enough even to have an influence on the atmosphere of partisanship. The few can be bipartisan; and that is probably their best chance of survival. But if Obama is successful, the Obama wind will be blowing so strongly in their states and districts, that they need to be getting a lot of favors for their constituents in return for their support if they plan to survive that wind. However, everyone is looking at “pork” and “earmarks” these days, and Red State Republicans will certainly be pointing out any pork being traded for the voting support of these Republicans. So, the question will come down to: Will the incumbents get credit from their constituents for being “bipartisan?”
Somehow, I doubt that, since they are too few to really change the overall partisan atmosphere; and therefore, the fact that they have been bipartisan may manifest itself as a bit abstract for them to receive enough credit from their constituents to overcome a Democratic and progressive wave. What about the Senate? Does this analysis hold there?
I think the Senate is the place where bipartisanship is most likely to benefit some Republicans. There are about 9 (Collins, Snowe, Gregg, Voinivich, McCain, Lugar, Specter, Ensign, and Murkowski) whose constituencies, or likely competition in Party primaries, may persuade them that more bipartisanship is in their interest. That’s enough to dilute partisanship in the Senate; but the problem is that the Democrats don’t need five of them to break a filibuster on a critical issue, but only one. So, the question is, why should the Democrats give up very much in their proposals by giving away very much to these Republicans? Senate Democrats have no reason to do that except a desire for bipartisanship itself, and why would their constituents give them greater credit for that than they would get by more fully delivering on their economic promises?
In short, bipartisanship won’t work right now because it’s not in the interest of Republicans and they can’t be “guilt-tripped” into it. Assuming that this argument is right, why was bipartisanship possible and successful in earlier times, while it’s unlikely to succeed now? I’ll look at a bit of history for some answers in my next post.