Home > Alex Massie

Friday 10 February 2012

Obama's Idea of Bipartisanship

Tuesday, 10th February 2009

Noam Scheiber addresses complaints that Obama is too conciliatory, too keen on the idea of bipartisanhip for bipartisanship's sake:

But complaints like this miss what’s been accomplished these last few weeks: Obama has completely defined the stimulus narrative on his own terms. To the average voter, Obama has been earnest and conciliatory while the Republicans have been cynical, self-serving, and puerile. Which, if the past is any guide, is precisely the moment he’ll start playing hardball.

I think this is true. Political junkies enjoy partisanship, not least because it permits one to divide the world neatly into Good Guys and Rotten Eggs, but much of the public, especially in times of strife, sees squabbling as selfishness and a continuation of politics as usual. In those circumstances it's hardly surprising that the public warms more to the fellow it a) elected and b) seems to be more interested in talking than grandstanding. That doesn't mean the GOP should roll over, but it does suggest they need to be a little smarter in how they oppose the new President. And they should remember that Obama's "new politics" is also really a means of co-opting opposition and bringing sceptics into an expanded house of liberalism. Nothing illegitimate with that, of course. As Noam says:

Republicans will protest that Obama and Congressional Democrats have trampled on the Senate compromise and unilaterally re-imposed their liberal priorities. They’ll sprinkle in a collection of shopworn clichés, like “behind closed doors,” and “dead of night.” But, in the end, it won’t matter. The media, having already proclaimed Obama the Beltway’s only bona fide bipartisan, is hardly going to rewrite the narrative at this late stage. And no senator who voted for the bill in the first time around is going to want to explain why he or she suddenly became “anti-job.”

By yesterday evening, you could almost see it dawn on Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell that he’d been played. “This package, had it been developed in genuine consultation, could have had a different result,” McConnell bleated, following a Senate vote that paved the way for the conference committee to convene. “But at the end of the day, it was--the administration decided--let the package be developed in Congress by the majority.” Right, Mitch. Tell it to someone who cares.

Too true. The electorate is in a mood for government to do something and, to be honest, it doesn't much care what that something is so long as it seems big and bold and dramatic. Will it work? Well, that's another question entirely. Indeed, Joe Biden - candid as ever - makes a Washington gaffe* by admitting that there's a 30% chance everything will go wrong.

*That is, he inadvertently tells the truth. A truth, moreover, that everyone knows but none may dare admit.

Filed under: Democrats (103 more articles) , GOP (304 more articles) , Obama (355 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

The Orator

February 10th, 2009 11:35am Report this comment

Not sure how inot bipartisanahip Obama really is (other than paying lip service to it), see here for example:

http://theorator2009.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-rank-constitutional-hypocrite.html

Ian C

February 10th, 2009 12:35pm Report this comment

So bad, no appalling economics (to be called Pelosinomics from now on, makes good politics? Since when?

It will for a short time, but this President has laid the foundations of his own demise in the first fortnight by not making the Republicans as much part-owners of the design of the stimulus package as Pelosi. The amount of bi-partisanship shown by Obama has been nil. And he has been shown to be not very smart either.

He promised change and he had a superb chance to give it with this most important action of his Presidency and he has blown it.

It would also have been politically savvy because he now owns the package, which has nothing to do with stimulus and everything to do with Democrats' christmas present list. It will bury him.

MattF

February 10th, 2009 12:36pm Report this comment

Is it a coincidence that three people who got rope-a-doped by Obama-- Clinton, McCain, and McConnell-- are all US Senators? I think not-- I think all three fell into the gap between the 'Senator Obama' they thought they knew and the 'President Obama' who has their number. Zadie Smith has more to say about all this in the latest NYRB.

John

February 10th, 2009 5:41pm Report this comment

Actually Biden said that there was a chance that 30% of it could go wrong which is rather different than Massie is reporting. On the wider interpretation of the political dynamics of the last ten days however, he's on the money. Obama was clearly in command at last night's press conference. Knowledgeable, poised and articulate...easily switching gears during fifty minutes of questions. Of course the right wing pundits are dissing him even when they are admitting he was effective..clearly they are pining for the intellectual clarity and rapier wit of George Bush. The rest of the country was making a mental comparison and sighing with relief that an adult was clearly in charge. Conservatives are confused. If you are in any doubt just read a few of the postings here. When you have situation where almost the entire Republican congressional delegation is voting against a bill that is supported by American Association of Manufacturers and US Chamber of Commerce, not normally citadels of liberalism, and most Republican governors you have to recognize this is a party with problems. The evidence is there for all to see in these polls from CNN, Gallup and Pew but Republicans as you can tell from the postings here have got so used to living in an alternate universe they either can't or don't want to get out of it.

shane glackin

February 10th, 2009 6:10pm Report this comment

Ian C - he brought the House Republickins in, talked to them about it, at great length, and offered them a variety of concessions. They all said how impressive this was, what a reasonable and fair-minded guy he was being, some of them even drew favourable contrasts with their own GWB; and then they voted against it *unanimously*.

What more, exactly, could he have done to help them be "part-owners"? What further overtures and consultations could he have made?

Admittedly, he could have totally caved into them, junked "pelosinomics", and done whatever Fox News told him to. But that wouldn't be "bipartisanship", that would be witless capitulation to an agenda that - let's not forget - was *resoundingly* rejected at the polls by the Yanqui people.

Conservative Cabbie

February 10th, 2009 8:06pm Report this comment

Shane Glackin

"he brought the House Republickins in, talked to them about it, at great length, and offered them a variety of concessions"

So pretty words and coffee and cakes is what counts as bipartisanship is it? The Republicans were just supposed to ignore the pork in the bill, discount the fact that it is far from stimulative, that it is overspending by about 700 billion and just vote yes because President Obama made nice. As with his supposed ethical reforms, actions speak louder than words.

"What further overtures and consultations could he have made?"

How about including some of their ideas. Just a thought (and not a radical one).

Dave L

February 10th, 2009 9:42pm Report this comment

"How about including some of their ideas."

Oh, so $275 bn in tax cuts was the Democrats' pet plan? Please, take the time to read the boring details, and don't just go straight to the partisan debate.

There was a lot in the package that delighted the Republicans, until they made the tactical decision to oppose it en masse.

Conservative Cabbie

February 11th, 2009 2:33am Report this comment

Dave L

"Please, take the time to read the boring details, and don't just go straight to the partisan debate."

I do take the time to study these things, that's how I feel safe to comment. Those tax cuts only include $41 mil for small businesses (4x less than the original plan for improving public Washington buildings) and are largely temporary payroll bonus checks, which has been proved not to work. There are no permanent job creation tax cuts in the package. You say that the GOP objection was strategic. So it has nothing to do with the fact that only about 10% of the money will be spent this year (ie. directly stimulative), that the Democrats are using this 'crisis' as a way to steamroll spending on their pet projects and special interest groups through congress.

If Obama-Pelosi had proposed a genuine stimulus package, the House GOP would not have opposed this in the way that they did. It is because it is such a bad bill that it was able to unite them.

Please try to see things from both sides,and try crediting those who see things differently to you with some intelligence fefore going "straight to the partisan debate".