Should the President strive to achieve a spirit of bipartisanship?
In one word: Trust.
Chris Howell’s missive to The New York Times appeared in the Letters To The Editor section on February 16, 2009. In his letter, he suggests that President Obama should reconsider his strategy of bipartisanship due to a lack of good-faith.
For three reasons, he calls bipartisanship a mistake. First, he states that bipartisanship “assumes a willing partner,” and the Republicans, according to Howell, have sought to “rapidly derail this presidency rather than help build a new spirit of bipartisanship.” Second, he believes the solutions to the nation’s problems are not “somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.” Instead, he believes from health care to the environment, the nation’s ills require radical solutions, not “weak compromises.” Third, Howell states that bipartisanship would go against the will of the people, since Democrats won overwhelmingly in the 2008 election. He says that Republican ideas “should not reappear through the back door.”
Should the President attempt to achieve a spirit of bipartisanship, as he had promised on the campaign trail?
Last week the House approved the President’s $838 billion economic plan without a single Republican vote. Only three Republican Senators supported the package. The bill will be signed into law by the President this week.
To millions of young Republicans and young Democrats who voted for him, President Obama was someone who made Americans feel good about themselves again after 9/11, Iraq and Katrina. On the campaign stump, he pulled on the heartstrings of disenchanted Americans who were tired of the old political gridlock in Washington. He inspired Americans everywhere with his message of unity in 2004, as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, which he carried over into his campaign.
“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America - there’s the United States of America,” said Obama.
Pundits may argue that Obama’s appeal was his promise of post-partisanship, in an era of political divisiveness. Our hope is that the President will indeed reach across the aisle, as he had promised.
I am proud of Republicans for standing up to Obama and his so called “bipartisanship.” Obama’s idea of bipartisanship is to force republicans into voting for what he wants instead of taking ideas from both sides. When Obama was supposedly consulting with Republicans, being bipartisan, he said quote “I won, I will trump you on that.” Does that sound like someone who is listening to both sides? Obama and democrats handed the republicans a stimulus package and demanded that they vote for it. When when republicans didn’t go along with it they were ridiculed and scolded for prolonging the recession. Does this sound like bipartisanship?
Senators did not even have an opportunity to read the bill they were voting on! The bill was rammed through Congress because people were actually beginning to find out what was in it and they WERE NOT and ARE NOT happy with it. This is not bipartisanship, but if Obama thinks it is then it will not matter if he continues to be bipartisan or not. He is not winning anyone over by “trumping” them. If Obama really wanted to be bipartisan he would have payed more attention to Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who were proposing true bipartisan stimulus packages. If you have not heard about Rush’s alternative proposal check out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
Obama has not been bipartisan at all. He is all talk and no “change.” The change would be for him to actually be bipartisan and accept some republican ideas.
Well, I think that when the so-called economic “stimulus” bill is nearly $800,000,000,000 and a LOT OF PORK, it is very hard to get any support from the Republican party. Sens. Collins, Snowe and Specter made a huge mistake supporting the bill. The changes that they sought were minimal at best. The fact is that had the Obama administration taken an active role in helping get the bill passed, a lot of the “crap” may have been taken out and maybe would have been a lot less money and more tax cuts. When the president starts negotiations with “I won”, it is really very hard to try to seek compromise. We have to do that when we can, but we can not sell out our beliefs. We did that in many ways the past eight years and it may be why we are in the position we are in.
Should he seek compromise? Of course, especially because he campaigned that he would do so. Will he? Obviously not. Liberals’ idea of bi-partisanship is when conservatives agree with the liberal opinion. That’s not bi-partisanship, it’s concession. When conservatives vote against Obama’s ridiculous socialist policies, they’re lambasted in the press as “obstructionists,” rather than simply as presenting a legitimate alternative viewpoint. When we say, “nationalized health care will be a disaster,” and liberals respond with, “that’s a non-starter,” then the argument is over because they refuse to consider our argument and instead say, “we won, so bend over.”
Less than one month in office and Obama is making good on his promise to “re-make America,” as though the most successful country on the face of the earth had been an abject failure until he came along. He is pursuing policies already that are contrary to the founding principles of this country, most notably a free-market economy and small government. He appears to want the opposite, and enough fools voted for him and the liberal congressional leaders that we may just get it. God Help America.
The whole notion that the 2008 election was a wholesale rejection of conservative ideas proves that bipartisanship is impossible. Over 52 million Americans, 46% of the population, said no to Obama’s plans to “remake” America, yet when pressed to compromise on his massive spending package, his responses are 1) I won and 2) I don’t presume to be lectured by a party that ran up deficits while in power.
In Washington, a town where ego reigns supreme, those are fighting words and not soon forgotten. Add to that Pelosi and Reid’s maneuvering and you have a recipe for failure when it comes to bipartisanship.
An interesting point; both George Bush and Barack Obama came to Washington promising bipartisanship. Both had reputations in their previous politicals posts for working across the aisle (Bush’s record was more substantive than Obama’s, in my opinion, but I digress). Both are finding that it’s easier said than done in Washington. Why? At the state level, most governments are required to submit a balanced budget every year. That forces both sides to give ground. When the federal government can print money that doesn’t exist by the trillions, the pressure to work together to make tough decisions is gone. I think you’d see a different Washington if we forced them to balance the budget each year.
Yes, he should seek bipartisanship as long as it means agreeing with things he doesn’t agree with. The word “bi-partisanship” is used falsely in Washington (as is a lot of things). It usually means, I’ll let you ride as long as you go my way. The other thing that peeves me is that the Dems didn’t win the whole country. It was a close race, which means that almost half of the country does not agree with them. If you even want to go there, a lot of Obama votes were nothing but “supebowl” fervor. A lot of the people who voted for him woke up the next day and had no idea what just happened.
I feel Obama definitely wants to achieve bi-partisanship. It will be up to individual Representatives and Senators to help achieve this goal, because there’s no way to enforce it.
It’s funny how much arguing goes on in Washington, especially since everyone is trying to achieve the same goal, but it’s the details that get everyone all riled up. And there’s no reason why the details can’t be reconciled.
It would be really great if ANY of our elected officials would do what’s best for our country instead of what’s best for the parties supporting them. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening and I think it’s naive to believe it will. President Obama has shown he is obviously not going to be in the middle of the road or try to find common ground on anything. This has been made clear by just about everything he’s done as President so far. It’s also clear that all his “working together” talk while he was on the campaign trail was nothing more than a bit of rhetoric to try to get people in the middle of the road to back him.
Locking Republicans out of the Stimulus Bill writing process is not bipartisanship. Like Mike above said. Democrats only want concessions from Republicans. Their need for “bipartisanship” and I say that in quotes,… is so the blame can be spread around when it fails. If the Democrats are so sure their ideas are best for the country what does it matter what Republicans say now? They’ve got total control, total credit and complete blame for this whole process. Leading is responsibility. Leading is not always doing what’s popular but what is right. I guess we’re all finally figuring out how they “lead” now aren’t we?
Bipartisanship is overrated. But partisanship is as equally treacherous. The former simply mean that the leadership of two political entities know how to work together to betray the people and the latter means they do just the same, but go it alone. If bipartisanship really worked, we wouldn’t have has much problems. But bipartisanship never works because we elect the same rich boy egos to the leadership of one party and then government fanboy egos in the other. We’ll never change. Because the media throws a name to the people and they eat it up without thinking about them or any other candidates outside of the small mainstream box. I wonder why the media, with corporate stakes and interests, would only hang certain names in front with much attention.
I find it extremely hypocritical for the Republicans who betrayed their conservative roots during the Bush years to be attacking Obama and his supporters for not being held to their word or holding him to his word, respectively. Bush ran on a platform of limited government and decentralized government. Bush also ran on a platform of not using Clinton’s concept of parading around the world pointing guns in peoples faces and dropping bombs in their backyards, telling them how their lives should be lived. Bush also ran on a platform of being humble with our power. Instead, the government became more centralized then any liberal could ever dream of. Ted Kennedy was alongside Bush on several policies, including the unconstitutional No Child Left Behind Act of 2000 and the official Bush Administration stance in Dick Heller v. District of Columbia, regarding the right to bear arms not being a right of the individual. We’re now entangled in a couple no-win occupations after wars that only had temporary support based on endless propaganda. We’ve been pointing guns in peoples faces, we’ve been dropping bombs in people’s backyards, and we’ve been silently bombing Pakistan off and on. Did a Republican hold him to his word? Nope. Instead he was held in the highest regard as that man fighting the noble fight against all those bad guys (except Pakistan, was that a small technicality or something?) and all of his Constitution-destroying Big Brother measures and Orwellian nightmares were justified because those bad guys were coming after us. This party never held him to his platform points. Ever. And now the entire party expects Obama supporters to hold Obama to his point? I find that just to be a tad hypocritical.
Let me clarify something. I am very much traditional conservative, which is why I am extremely upset with the party right now and have been for years. I was opposed to the stimulus bill and very much ashamed to say that two of the three traitor senators were from my State (but proudly, I did not vote for Collins in the last election. Instead, I went independent). But the Democrats, as much as I absolutely hate to say it, have a strong point going with the Republican hypocrisy over this. We’re facing trillions in debt, through wars and invasions, prolonged occupations, further Big Brother measures and the continued fulfillment of the prophecies of George Orwell, but now all of a sudden the party cares? Would it have something to do with the fact that its not their party in the lead now? Bush did bad too, with his paper pusher bailout of the Wall Street cronies. While Paulsen was on the Congress floors preaching about the country falling apart and martial law being declared, as several congressmen would later note, Bush was doing the same “the sky is falling, act now without thinking” speeches that Obama is doing. Still, Bush is held in the highest regard and the party is attacking Obama for policies that look all too much like those of George Walker Bush.
Getting back to the point. Bipartisanship won’t matter as long as the Republican Party is largely liberal-controlled. As long as we’re supporting rampant intervention, economic meddling, worthless paper money, and deficit spending, this economy will not get better. The Republican swung to the left several years ago. It needs to get back. All of us here need to return truly to the right of the spectrum, and not just simply assume we’re there because we are registered Republicans. That is, with all due respect, naive. You all here have a responsibility to conservatism. It’s about time the mistakes get corrected and the party again choses a philosophy of true conservatism. Only then, will bipartisanship not be liberals agreeing with liberals.
i dont think it is up to obama right now. Pelowsi in the house and Reed in the senate are so drunk with power right now that i think they dont really care what Obama thinks. Republicans did not vote for this bill because they did not have a say in what went in it. They were blocked from the process of creating it. How bi-partisan is that. I hope you people in the states of the three republicans, that were paid off for their vote, take care of them in the primaries.
Unfortunately, I think the Republicans were dead set against against Obama from the beginning. The voted against the stimulus in the hopes that it will fail, so they can have the edge in 2010. Obama met with Republicans, invited them for drinks at the WH, invited them to see the superbowl with him, held meetings with them. He went all out.
Obama compromised a great deal. Tax cuts make up 42% of the bill, and yet they still couldn’t get one republican in the house. Do you actually think a republican president would have compromised and made a bill 42% spending? Republicans have made a gamble, their unfavorable ratings have risen since they came out against the plan, because people know when politicians are playing politics.
The stimulus is a great bill. Money for states, schools, infrastructure, green energy, the unemployed, tax cuts. The Republican alternative that was put forward was, you guessed it, 100% tax cuts. It wasn’t tax cuts that got us out of the Great Depression, it was massive govt. spending on World War II.
Republicans are incredibly hypocritical to be talking about deficits and spending, when George Bush and the Republican Congress doubled the debt. The Reagan years also saw a huge increase in the national debt and budget deficit. I saw no Republican complaining about Medicare part D, or the Iraq War during the Bush years, both which cost over $1 trillion.
btw i think the stimulus is better than none.
Although i think mortgages should be allowed to default, and lenders and borrower should pay for their mistakes. (i remember reading about all the fraud on mortgage applications, those borrowers should lose their shirts, the lenders should get burned for being lax on who they lent money to). Alot of this mess is due to shady lending. The people involved shouldn’t get off scott free.
The republicans did their job. I remember one of the measures that got taken out was a few million bucks for some nature conservatory for an endangered mouse. I’m green as much as the next guy, however this is a “ECONOMIC” stimulus plan, not a nature conservatory bill. Those millions would have been better lent to small business, or schools who are not able to pay teacher salaries.
Yeah thats a small example, but there were alot of examples like that were thrown out, due to republican opposition.
bipartisanship sounds nice, and fuzzy, but that is not how our government works. Checks and balances serve a constructive purpose.
because the government is ultimately accountable to its citizens. insurance companies are accountable only to its shareholders, and even with that the governments regulations is the only thing keeping it honest (or the lack thereof promotes dishonesty, with the e.g of AIG and lack of regulation).
Saying one thing and doing another is one of Mr. Obama’s most marketable skills. He can be convince you that he means it when he promises bipartisanship. However, perhaps in a moment of frustration or childish pride he spouted off the “I won” line. Those words are a window into his soul (and motivation).
There were no cooperative ideas or compromise in the stimulus package. There were no opposing voices. Just imagine what he can achieve in the years ahead. With the help of his friends, Snowe, Collins and Specter nothing will be out of his reach. Bipartisanship? Should he? Yes. Will he or is this just another broken campaign promise? Time will tell very shortly.
Seems to me that most of the posts here serve well to illustrate why our party is where it is today.
Politics is and has always been about compromise. Obama may continue to try for bipartisanship; probably will. It will succeed, or not, to the extent that moderates on both sides are willing to deal. Those will be the smart ones.
I don’t see much evidence in the crybaby naysaying above that we’re learning anything, yet. It’s discouraging. Obama is trying, his way, to rescue the country’s chestnuts from the fire that recent years of incompetence and greed have caused. Our party’s representatives have a choice: earn their salaries by stepping up and playing a part in shaping that way — or just exclaim (Boehner) “Oh my God”.
Statesmanship consists of more than just saying No. It requires engagement and, ultimately, compromise. Call it bipartisanship if you choose.
I think Obama is genuinely interested in bi-partisanship.
Congress, on the other hand, is not.
Other than that, I think people are reading too much into one bill. It’s a doozie, sure; but it’s still only one bill.
Mike,
The New Deal did help our economy. In 1933 the unemployment rate was 24%, and by 1937 it was 14%. Only in 1937 when FDR cut spending to balance the budget, then the economy entered a short recession in 1938. From 1933-1937, economic output went up, GDP went up. The economy was getting better before World War II, because of the New Deal. The New Deal made things better, not worse. And World War II did end the depression, but how? It was spending on the war. It Herbert Hoover’s hands of approach that made things worse after 1929. If the New Deal was such a failure, its amazing how FDR was re-elected in three landslide victories.
And yes, over $200 billion of the stimulus is in tax cuts. The bill is only 58% spending.
I don’t know how spending money to rebuild infrastructure, build high speed rails, invest in alternative energy, rebuild schools is socialism. Can you explain that for me?
To me, bi-partisanship is merely a label used when politicians want their constituents to think they’re trying to “make nice with one another.” The only way I see to deconstruct the problems we have allowed our politicians to create is to insist at every single turn that their words match their behaviors, name names when they don’t and vote only for those politicians who fill that bill regardless of party affiliation.
I can deal with what I know…whether I agree or not. What I cannot deal with is the quagmire of lying, cheating, abuse of power and forced agendas that have overtaken Washington…often under the guise of bi-partisanship from both sides of the aisle.
Do not tell me you’re a Catholic and then vote for all kinds of pro-abortion legislation. Do not tell me you’re in favor of our Republic and then vote as if you live in Sweden. Do not tell me you’re fiscally conservative and then vote for the largest “pig package” in history. Do not tell me that Fannie and Freddie are a-okay just prior to their collapse. And on and on and on…
Say what you mean, mean what you say and act accordingly. So simple. So powerful. Salvation from an extremely dangerous and slippery slope that we have chosen to go down.
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.