I’ve written in the past on the counter-productiveness of bipartisanship for the President and the Democratic Party. Today, Nancy Cohen offered a nice analytical Huffington Post piece on bipartisanship that adds to the argument. She says:
”The supposed superiority of “bipartisanship” to “partisanship” is premised on three myths about the relationship between the people and the political parties. We have become hopelessly confused about ends and means, about why and when bipartisanship should matter. Here then, is a guide to the myths and realities of bipartisanship.”
Those myths are that: 1) bipartisanship “proves that a national consensus has been reached”; 2) “bipartisanship ensures that proper compromises will be made,” and 3) “without a bipartisan vote” . . . “the public will eventually turn against” the new health care program.
Dr. Cohen points out that 1) doesn’t work because survey data show that only 28% of the American people view the Republicans favorably, while 57% view the Democrats favorably. Since there’s far from an even split in public opinion, Cohen points out that the consensus of opinion is not somewhere between what the two parties think, but is rather over on the Democratic side. If our objective is to have consensus; then in situations like this bipartisanship is not the way to go, because it’s no longer an adequate proxy for where consensus lies.
Nor, it turns out, will bipartisanship ensure that a proper compromise is the outcome of negotiations. Such a compromise must be representative of the national consensus. But, once again, bipartisanship is no longer a good proxy for that consensus, and bipartisan negotiations between centrist Democrats and “party of no” Republicans will produce a compromise that is improper since it will be much to the right of where the country’s consensus lies as measured by opinion polls. A much better compromise in terms of correspondence with the national consensus would be produced by negotiations between Centrist and Progressive Democrats. But to make that happen, the Administration should abandon bipartisanship and simply try to bring the Democrats together, especially since reconciliation is available to get around the threat of filibuster.
The final myth, that bipartisanship is needed to stop the public from turning against health care reform eventually is not, as Dr Cohen points out, borne out by the experience of the Roosevelt and Johnson Administrations and their successors. The public hasn’t had any trouble with acceptance of social security, other items in Roosevelt’s safety net, and Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid programs.
So, there go all three myths, and with them any reason why the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress should prioritize bipartisanship over results when it comes to health care reform or any of their other vital programs. It’s time to say “Let’s Get It Done,” and legislate the best program we can so that no American will need, any longer, to endure a health care system whose failings are visited like natural catastrophes and medieval plagues on ordinary citizens.