All Life Is Problem Solving

Why was bipartisanship possible and successful in earlier times, while it’s unlikely to succeed now? In earlier periods of bipartisanship, margins in the Senate were smaller than they are now, and the legislative and executive branches were often divided between the parties. During the period before the Republican electoral takeover of the South; bipartisanship was encouraged by the immediate post-war strength of that tradition in Foreign Policy, and also by the split in the Democratic Party between mainstream Democrats and the Dixiecrats. Today the “blue dog” Democrats are not nearly as conservative as the Dixiecrats were, and the Democratic Party is much more unified than it used to be.

Moreover, today, the ideological split between the Parties is much greater than it was during the days when relatively centrist and “Eisenhower Republicans” controlled the Republican Party. In those times, economic issues between the two parties could much more easily be compromised, because the New Deal consensus on the efficacy of Government was still intact and Republicans were neither attempting to rid America of the New Deal, nor to represent Christian Evangelical values. That changed when the Republicans became “Conservative” and attempted to turn back the clock of economic policy to the 1920s, and the clock of religious policy back to the 1890s. At first, the Democrats resisted, but as the belief in the efficacy of the market and the ineffectiveness of Government grew, and as the evangelical movement grew stronger, the Democratic Party began to move toward a policy of heavy reliance on the market, if not quite toward market fundamentalism. This did not end ideological conflict, because the Republicans continued to emphasize the gap between the two parties on social, regional, and urban-rural issues, which by their very nature are less open to compromise than are economic differences in the context of paradigmatic consensus on economics.

Now, we come to the present. The consensus on the dominant economic paradigm is once again gone. The Republicans still believe in the old time religion, while the country has seen it fail once again, and now sees a revival of the old New Deal consensus on an active role for Government, including an emphasis on market and business regulation. In Foreign Policy, the Republican reliance on unilateralism and military action has experienced a visible and costly failure, and there is broad support for a policy that relies on a mix of very active Diplomacy and military readiness and that involves less risk. For the time being, social and value issues are eclipsed, but their importance will return again, once the economic crisis is over.

Looking at this overall situation, we can now see the global reasons why bipartisanship won’t work. First, we still have a serious split between the Parties and the constituencies they represent on values and social issues. This split is on the back burner now, but the possibility of using it for electoral gain means that there’s always a good possibility of the kind of nasty exchanges around social ideology that can undermine bipartisanship. Second, for the time being the split in Foreign Policy seems to be receding, and this area is probably the most promising one for bipartisanship in the short-term, given the loss of credibility suffered by the “neocons.”

But, third, the most important barrier to bipartisanship is the divide over the paradigm of fundamental economic policy that has opened over the last year in response to events. How can bipartisanship in economic policy succeed when one party is still committed to the market, to tax cuts for higher income people, and to as little regulation as possible; while the other party is convinced that such policies are to blame for the economic downturn we are experiencing now, and that we must turn to regulation, and to much greater Government intervention to stabilize and then maintain the stability of the market economy?

If the Democrats are successful in implementing their ideas for recovery, it will once again legitimize the role of Government in the economic system and in providing at least a modicum of social justice. That is a kind of “death” for most of today’s Republicans, since they would have to admit to themselves, and perhaps to others, that their political activity over the years has been based on a long-term error of belief which has harmed both their constituents and their country. For most of them bipartisan collaboration in support of the mixed economy paradigm isn’t possible without reconstructing their ideological commitments and political appeals and accepting this little “death.” So very few of them will do it, unless they think that bipartisanship and acceptance of the mixed economy paradigm will save their jobs, AND they still want those jobs. But, as I’ve argued earlier very few of them will be able to avoid defeat by becoming bipartisan.

So, what has to happen before bipartisanship in American Politics can become a significant factor? Paradoxically, I think that the partisan war has first to be won decisively by one side or the other. Right now, the Democrats have the best chance of winning that war by showing that the mixed economy paradigm is the right one to follow and that market fundamentalism is bankrupt. If that occurs, then for Republicans to be successful again, they will have to become a party that accepts that paradigm, and that more or less agrees with the Democrats on the proper foundations of the Economy. When that happens, Republican candidates will be able to compete on Foreign Policy issues, on social and values issues, and on the details of how the mixed economy should be managed. And Republican office holders will be able to practice bipartisanship on economic issues and Foreign Policy issues once again.

If I’m right about all this, then it means that President Obama’s attempt at bipartisanship is the wrong way around. You can’t have bipartisanship now because Republicans committed to market fundamentalism cannot avoid defeat by being bipartisan in a context where the economic paradigm is transitioning back to a mixed economy, and they are identified with the old market fundamentalist paradigm. But, bipartisanship will be practical, once this transition is complete and clearly successful, so that a new generation of Republicans can commit to a mixed economy model, become acceptable to a public that has also accepted that model, and successfully compete with Democrats on the details. The recipe, regrettably, as Roosevelt also discovered in 1934-35, has to be to win the partisan war first, and to practice bipartisanship later, when there is greater agreement on the basic economic paradigm.

Meanwhile civility, attempts to court Republican support in meetings, shows of respect, and Washington cocktail parties are all to the good. Build personal relationships across party lines. Prepare the way for bipartisanship based on the sharing of the mixed economy paradigm. But until this political generation of fundamentalist Republicans passes on and is replaced by a new one filled with more pragmatic Republicans, there will be very little bipartisanship, notwithstanding the fondest hopes and sincere promises of the President.