On Bipartisanship
In President-Elect Obama’s Victory Speech in Grant Park, he said:
I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for 221 years — block by block, bricky by brick calloused hand by calloused hand.
The emphsasis is mine. Especially when we disagree. Throughout Obama’s campaign, the President-Elect has never once attacked Republicans, he has tried to stay away from the attack (the one noticeable misstep was the Keating Five movie), but most all he has always said that we have more in common that we have differences:
We’re not a red state America or a blue state America. We are the United States of America.
I know that bipartisanship has never really existed in this country before. William Safire in Safire’s Political Dictionary quotes Ed Flynn, a New York Democratic Party leader from the first half of the 20th Century, as saying:
There is no such thing as nonpartisanship. If there were, there would be no need for elections. The phrase ‘nonpartisanship’ has a high moral tone. It is used by men running for public office to attract votes, but deep down in their hears these men know that it is only a word without meaning. There is, and always must be, honest disagreement. All of us have our likes and dislikes. And that is the genesis of partisanship..
But it is time and Change has come. The Change President-Elect Obama has promised is one of substance and style. On November 4th, we have ushered out your father’s politics and brought in a new politics for your children. Punishing Lieberman for standing up for his principles by campaigning for Senator McCain is not Change, it is politics of yesterday. Punishing Liebermann for campaigning for moderate Republicans is not Change, it is the politics of yesterday. Punishing Jan Ting for donating to Obama’s campaign is not Change, it is the politics of yesterday. We Democrats must discard our new found hubris and embrace the Change from the politics of old to the politics of new. It is time to lead.
Tags: President Obama
I agree that there is no place for “punishment” when what it means is “revenge”. Also that acting out of hubris is dangerous. Just ask the Bushies.
I also believe that it is a sign of maturity when, if someone tells you clearly what his intentions are, you believe him. Not to respond with animosity, or joy, depending on the intentions – simply to accept that what you have been told and shown is a true representation of that persons intent.
Joe Lieberman has told the world, quite clearly that he does not support Obama’s approach to governing – the new way forward. To allow him to keep leadership positions in which he steers the agenda of powerful Sentate committees would be foolish. Yes, his vote will be needed. Yes, we should listen to his disagreement and respect his opinion. But the responsible thing for him and for the Senate to do, is to welcome his participation as a member of those committees, not as their leader.
Justice is not revenge or punishment. We need justice.
Nemski, this is an excellent post with lots to think about.
But I think I’m going to disagree with you abit here.
There is, and always must be, honest disagreement.
This is the key bit here — honest disagreement, but how you bridge those disagreements to govern effectively. We all live lives where we have to compromise with family, neighbors, coworkers, boss — just everyone — but our political lives have been transformed into blindly staking out fierce ideologies, supporting “your guys” even when your guys are clearly doing the wrong thing and into a place where compromise is not needed because the people on the other side are not just wrong, they are fundamentally bad people.
In this Lee Atwater era of our politics, campaigning is way more important than actually doing something. Because actually (and successfully) being adult enough to address a real problem provides the purity police a platform to bang their drum. Witness Bush I’s attempts to deal with the massive deficit spending. He worked with the Congress to come up with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases (the compromise) that the purity police of his own party scuttled. Bush’s economic policy largely wound down from there for many reasons, but one of the major reasons would be the undermining of a compromise by those who would not.
I don’t think that I hear Obama talking about bipartisanship as a fetish object — something that is its own good, but as the only way to get to governing in a way that accommodates the needs of the country and the American people. That doesn’t mean that everyone leaves their principles at the door, but it does mean that you have to walk back out of that door with genuine (not necessarily perfect) solutions to genuine problems. The politics is in explaining to your constituents the need to do good now rather than waiting the chance to get the perfect. If he can get to that — a place where grownup decision-making has a chance to work and to survive, that would be Change enough.
The Obama campaign back channeled the negative through the media, internet, etc; whereas the McCain campaign attacked full frontal with attack ads.
That difference made it seem like Obama was taking the high road and McCain the low road.
I don’t think bringing up the Keating Five was a mistake. Why should we ignore McCain’s dishonorable actions from the past? It gave us plenty of clues of what kind of person he really was. I also agree with Cassandra that not all disagreement was honest. How do you explain Republicans suddenly deciding that the progressive tax system, started by McCain’s hero Teddy Roosevelt, was socialism that must be stopped at all costs?