Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship shouldn’t be a political death sentence

By Ron Wyden
Friday, May 21st, 2010 A17

The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week’s primaries and Utah’s recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party’s most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob’s party thought that his working with a democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S. Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose and vice versa.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, legislating is treading as if there is a giant congressional scoreboard that will ultimately determine which party gets to be in charge. What one side is for legislatively, the other is unalterably against. Many believe that is the only way to achieve clear victory.
While it is certainly true that legislating can be (and is) turned into a zero-sum game, despite what you hear on cable news, not every issue has a diametrically opposed Democratic and Republican ideologies. In fact, not only are there policy areas on which Democrats and Republicans agree, but when it comes to legislating, many issues present opportunities to build on the best ideas of both parties. No single party has lock on all the good ideas.

I still think I had a pretty good idea for health reform – despite its rejection by significant Democratic and Republican Leaders – but so did Bob Bennett. I was on the Senate floor three years ago when Bob walked across the center aisle to tell me that he was willing to work with me on health reform. I had been meeting with him and other Senate colleagues for many weeks to talk about he Healthy Americans Act and what I believed was a historic opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.

Ideologically, Bob and I couldn’t be more different. He’s pro-life. I’m pro-choice. He voted for the Iraq war; I didn’t. If Bob has ever seen a tax break, he didn’t like, I am unaware of it. But one thing Bob and I have in common is our fundamental belief that we were elected to so more than just get reelected, that once elections are over we have a duty to try and govern, even if it means working with people with whom we don’t always agree.
While I let others debate what became of the Wyden-Bennett health-reform bill, our effort married the best, most principled ideas that both parties had been promoting for decades. Like most Democrats, my fundamental principle was guaranteeing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Like most Republicans, Bob felt strongly that market forces be used to promote expanded consumer choice and competition. Our legislation did both. As long as I would help Bob achieve his marketplace principles and avoid bigger government, Bob said he could back me on getting everyone insured.

Working in a bipartisan fashion can lead to watered-down legislation, yes, but principled bipartisanship can also lead to a value added, better result. Personally, I believe that both prevent the other side from gaining ground. By working with those with whom we don’t necessarily see eye to eye, we are forced to work harder, to test our ideas, to consider solutions that we may never have thought of on our own. Moreover, if Democrats and Republicans even stop fighting each other, they might finally find the strength to defeat the interest groups that all to easily exploit the partisan divide.

Bob Bennett is one of the most conservative men I have ever known, but he is also one of the best. Even in defeat, he told me that he doesn’t for one minute regret working with me to try to do something important for the country, which is why I consider his loss so tragic. The country needs more senators who think like Bob Bennett, not fewer.

While it may be tempting to read the recent elections as a rejection of principled bipartisanship, polling shows that the majority of American people are sick of the the status quo, and the status quo is a Washington obsessed with legislating as though the Congress’s sol function is to play a wholly partisan, zero-sum fame. The American people want us to put our nation ahead of party allegiances. They want us to do more than devise ways to gain and maintain power. They ant us to be constructive with that power.

The regrettable irony of what transpired in Utah’s Republican conventions is that a small number of hyper partisan activities have just ensured that Utah’s contribution to the Senate will be less bipartisanship and more of the status quo in Washington. If that is the change that partisans are offering the nation, let’s make certain the American public understands.






Why can't all government think this way? What is so wrong with bipartisanship?

 

I agree; things have gotten way too divisive lately; to the point where it seems like nothing can get done. It actually prompted me to send a petition to the white house; I posted about it on this thread.

 

They are in fact destructive, and it all started with the Kennedy assassination in 1963.

 

In court, the defense and the prosecution count and the criminal counts and the judge counts. The victim doesn't count.

In politics, the politicians count, the bureaucrats count, special interests count but taxpayers don't count.

 

I think it's a shame that some people equate bipartisanship with indecisiveness. They way I see it, selecting one of two parties is somewhat extreme and silly. Very rarely is someone going to 100% agree with republican or democratic ideals. It seems smart to stick with what you believe in and have a good balance. Ideas that benefit from a combination of ideals for different political parties seem to never have a chance as politicians are afraid to upset those in his/her political party. Someone please tell me this: Why can't political parties be done away with in the voting system? Why can't voters vote for people based on their individual ideals, their voting records, and their actions? Is this just impractical? I don't clearly understand why we can't just have all politicians tied to no political parties in congress, senate, etc. Sure, people could band together and form parties based on what they believe in. But why can't politicians remain untied to an ideological party and just let those who formed the party decide if the politician does or does not fit in with their party based on the politician's individual ideals?

 

Take away any and all Riders on Congressional Bills and there is no need for Bipartisanship; the bills then will stand or fall on their own merit, not something hidden that helps some dumb bird or teeney-weenie fish no one ever heard of. Riders are the ruination of congress.