ARE REPUBLICANS READY FOR BIPARTISANSHIP?
In the opinion piece in today’s WaPo: “How Republicans Can Stop Everyone From Blaming Them” the author, Catherine Rampell, makes several telling points, all centering around the notion of Republicans embracing bipartisanship: 1) It offers political cover to do necessary but unpopular things. 2) The Grand Old Party wouldn’t be so easily tripped up by hostage takers from the extremists within the party.
The third point she made has troubled me ever since Trump began stamping out any vestiges of the Obama legacy:
3) “Finally, if the majority party successfully achieves meaningful support from the minority, it’s less likely that a major policy initiative would be undone or sabotaged when the balance of power shifts.”
It’s axiomatic that when the center abandons the political fray, control of government rests in the hands of the extremes of the two parties. Consequently, as each party comes into power, it will insist on implementing its extremist agenda, each radically different from the policies of the government it replaced. The inevitable consequence of this condition is a series of wild, radical swings from one extreme of the political pendulum to the other with each change of government, leading to ever-increasing instability and polarization – preconditions for either civil war or dictatorship, or both.
Ironically, the extremes of both parties are motivated by a common denominator, namely anger and discontent driven by the realization that the ruling establishment is not governing in the interests of the People, but instead is serving the interests of the wealthy donor class – Trump and Bernie Sanders being the leading exponents of this dissafection. However, the remedies sought by each are radically opposed and incompatible:
· The Right, believing “government is the problem, and the private sector is the solution” to paraphrase Reagan, seeks to “deconstruct the administrative state,” in Steve Bannon’s words and promote religious fundamentalist values and nativist, anti-immigrant, protectionist policies driven by economic discontent. Hence, we get cabinet secretaries appointed by Trump who are adversaries of the agencies under their supervision, dramatic reductions in their budgets and staffs, and increasing privatization of functions within their purview, coupled with xenophobic policies like “The Wall,” mass deportations and “Muslim bans” – all with the enthusiastic approval of two distinct Republican bases: populist and donor.
o However, flying under the populist base’s radar are donor-driven corollary policies (favored by both Trump and Congress) seemingly consistent with the populist anti-government mindset, but, in reality, quite detrimental to the populist-base’s interests. These consist of 1) tax cuts for the rich (fraudulently disguised as “tax-cuts-across-the-board”) 2) elimination regulations critical to the health, safety and financial wellbeing of the general population, to the benefit corporate America, its managers and shareholders (disguised as pro-jobs) and 3) increases in military spending favoring the military-industrial complex and diverting resources away from consumers (also obscured by the pro-jobs smokescreen).
o The effects of these policies (dating back to Reagan, forcibly acquiesced to by Clinton and Obama, boosted by G.W. Bush and supercharged by Trump) have been a) massive upward redistribution of wealth resulting in extreme income/wealth inequality and b) deterioration of the public’s health, safety, financial wellbeing c) economic and financial calamity in the long run diminishing working Americans’ financial security and standard of living d) the reduction in resources dedicated to working Americans – precisely the opposite of what the Republican populist base hopes for.
o Regrettably, seduced by their party’s anti-government, pro-private-sector and ultra-conservative social values rhetoric (so crudely, yet effectively articulated by Trump) the Republican populist base fails to understand how counterproductive to their interest are the donor base’s overriding corollary policies. So powerful is the Republican populist-base appeal and beguilingly deceptive the donor-base messaging, that the populist base hasn’t yet figured it out, even after 36 years of stagnant real wages, capped by housing- and stock-market collapses and a “Great Recession.” Republican spinmeisters have deftly managed to misdirect populist anger and discontent away from its true source, the self-serving donor class, and on to the government.
o The essential unity between Trump’s messages and policies directed at the populist base and those of the donor-beholden Republican establishment, explains the unholy alliance between the two.
· The Left, on the other hand, correctly understands the Republican donor-base policies to be self-serving and detrimental to the interests of the general population. Hence, it advocates precisely the opposite remedies: 1) Higher taxes on the wealthy 2) Diligent, intelligent regulation 3) Reduced military spending and reallocation of resources to benefit the general population, especially toward education, healthcare and the provision of basic needs of the economically disadvantaged and 4) Acceptance and accommodation of immigrants.
o Unfortunately, the Democratic messaging is outmatched by that of the Republicans for four main reasons:
1. Democrats have fixated on the politics of personality, following Trump down rabbit holes of every outrageous shiny object he uses to lure them away from focusing on a coherent economic and fiscal policy message appealing to working Americans (to which Bannon gleefully responds, “As long as they [do that] we’ll beat them every time.”).
2. Many Democrats are themselves compromised by their dependence on wealthy donors, and therefore are muted in promoting populist remedies detrimental to the interests of the donor class.
3. The Left tends to fragment into single-issue groups lacking coordination and unity in effectively promoting central, coherent themes and courses of action needed to overcome the Republican messaging machine.
4. The Democrats are outmatched by Republicans in resources and ruthlessness. Being the party of the rich, Republicans enjoy advantages in fundraising with which to promote Republican candidates, not only at the national but also at the state and local levels of government. Controlling two-thirds of the statehouses, Republicans have succeeded in suppressing the franchise for many likely Democratic voters and gerrymandering congressional districts so that routinely Republicans collectively receiving a minority of votes achieve majority representation in Congress. Likewise, the last two Republican presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote.
o In other writings I have set forth measures Democrats could profitably embrace to overcome these disadvantages. See here, here, here and here.
Returning to Rampell’s theme of Republicans embracing bipartisanship: While bipartisanship would be eminently sensible, we don’t live in an eminently sensible world these days. Current Republican congressional leadership has heretofore rejected bipartisanship in the belief that controlling legislative and executive branches of government (and, with the ruthless confirmation of Justice Gorsuch, leaning toward control of the judiciary), they can govern unilaterally. However, the embarrassing Republican debacle over repealing and replacing Obamacare, plus the possible defection of fiscally conservative Republicans on the issues of tax cuts and trade, certainly gives Republican leadership reasons to consider a more bipartisan approach to governance. To do so would require Republicans to make significant concessions to Democrats, whose policy preferences are markedly, and in many cases, irreconcilably at odds with those of the Republicans and their donors. Making an already challenging situation even more difficult is the threat by the extreme right -- Bannon et al., “declaring war on the Republican establishment” saying he will promote challengers against moderate Republicans willing to make such compromises. Trump has also expressed his disapproval of a bipartisan approach to health-care reform. Consequently, in assessing the advantages of bipartisanship, Republican leadership must not only weigh the acceptability (among donors, especially) of the compromises needed to gain Democratic support, but also the risks of provoking the active opposition of the extreme right. So instead of reducing the threat of "hostage takers" from the extreme right of the party, bipartisanship could increase their power. It’s a difficult calculus with an unpredictable outcome, in my opinion. Stay tuned.
Comments encouraged.