Current Events > Is bipartisanship dead?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It is live and well, and not in a good way

I could just as easily ask you how they'll get Republican cooperation.

COVxy posted...

Because that was a fantastic showing of bipartisanship? Not sure what you think we're talking about here.

Is your contention here that compromising MORE with conservatives would have landed a bill that contained increased support for poor people and better environmental protections?

If your stance is "it would be nice if Republicans behaved more in more bipartisan fashion," sure, maybe it would.

But think pragmatically: what can liberals and those on the left do to get Republicans - who are elected by Republicans, often in districts and states that aren't particularly close - to behave in this way? Not only is our power limited, but Republicans have shown that they take glee in behaving precisely in opposite ways from what liberals and the left want. They have no interest in playing along so Democratic presidents can claim another feather in their cap, and every reason to try and stymie those efforts. That's how their votes and donors want them to act.

God knows I'm a critic of the Democratic Party's responsiveness to its voters, but there is at least notionally something that people like us can do to alter their actions.

Bipartisanship still exists, but only when the cameras are turned off. The moment an issue hits social media, government officials go from trying to actually get a bill passed to posturing in anticipation of a future election. Suddenly it becomes about taking the most righteous stance to your voter base, or jamming a bunch of riders into a bill so your opposition votes against it so you can claim that they hate whatever the original bill was about.

Look at the infrastructure bill. The Senate was able to pretty cleanly cut a bill for infrastructure with broad bipartisan support without any drama. Compare and contrast that to the house bill which received significantly more media attention and you can immediately see the difference between those two bills.

Is it media media attention that shaped those bills' fortunes, or the fact that the latter included things Republicans and Joe Manchin don't want?

I think you could actually reverse the causality there; BBB got more attention because there was more conflict and more drama as to whether it would pass, not the other way around. Media coverage wasn't fixated on what the bill did, but the backroom negotiations over its passage:
https://thecolumn.substack.com/p/the-actual-human-stakes-of-the-reconciliation?s=r

While the bill is far from complete (nor do its climate change provisions come close to meeting the scientific reality of the carbon emission economy), it would be a massive improvement to the lives of millions of poor, elderly, Black and Brown, homeless, and vulnerable communities. But one would not know any of this watching television coverage of the showdown over the bill between progressives and moderates.

A survey of news reports on CBS News, NBC News, ABC Sinclair affiliates, and CNN over the past week shows a TV media largely uninterested in what is actually in the bill or what is likely to be cut in the event that the bill is slimmed down to the counter offer proposed by Senator Joe Manchin of $1.5 trillion ($150 billion annually). Instead, these outlets are interested in the political melodrama of progressives facing off against moderates Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

Watch, for example, this 6 minute report [hyperlink in article] on the Reconciliation Bill discussed on Jake Tappers The Lead. Tapper is joined by CNN White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond and CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox to discuss the status of the legislation. Other than a single vague reference to social safety net spending, none of them actually mention anything that is actually in the bill.

They discuss the matter for six whole minutes without mentioning Pell Grants, housing vouchers, community college tuition, dental and hearing coverage for seniors, expanded medicare coverage, repairing run-down schools, school lunch for poor children, or universal pre-K. The bill is just an abstractiona vague social program being pushed by left-wingers, the substance of which is incidental. In lieu of examination of content, we get six minutes of horse race and speculation about the near-term political stakes and vague reference to moderates being uncomfortable with the high price tag.

Antifar posted...

Is it media media attention that shaped those bills' fortunes, or the fact that the latter included things Republicans and Joe Manchin don't want?

I think you could actually reverse the causality there; BBB got more attention because there was more conflict and more drama as to whether it would pass, not the other way around.

It's both. I have no doubt BBB was designed to be cut down from its initial draft, but once everyone's eyes were on that bill people felt forced to double down on it and people who might otherwise be willing to compromise were suddenly resolute in their support/opposition to every single thing in the bill.

But BBB also gets to another problem that is related: the newfound focus on massive omnibus bills that are "too big to fail" where parties fit in their entire wishlist of agenda items and then use months of media attention around it to posture for elections.

s0nicfan posted...

But BBB also gets to another problem that is related: the newfound focus on massive omnibus bills that are "too big to fail" where parties fit in their entire wishlist of agenda items and then use months of media attention around it to posture for elections.

That newfound focus stems from newfound usage of the filibuster as a 60-vote threshold for ordinary legislation. Because Congress is limited in the number of times it can use reconciliation, parties in power can try to cram their agenda into one bill, or pass none of it.

s0nicfan posted...

But BBB also gets to another problem that is related: the newfound focus on massive omnibus bills that are "too big to fail" where parties fit in their entire wishlist of agenda items and then use months of media attention around it to posture for elections.

We'd get more actual negotiations done if the filibuster was removed.

Antifar posted...

That newfound focus stems from newfound usage of the filibuster as a 60-vote threshold for ordinary legislation. Because Congress is limited in the number of times it can use reconciliation, parties in power can try to cram their agenda into one bill, or pass none of it.

Well I'm also of the mind that congress needs to actually make the opposing party filibuster rather than using the threat of it as an excuse to kill a bill. Let these 70 year olds try standing at a podium and talking for 8 hours straight knowing that the moment they take a break it'll actually go to vote and see how often the filibuster is threatened in a year or two.

Bipartisanship exists on the individual level, not not on the political level. Like the people that claim to be "Fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"

Any random Joe can take a single issue and have an opinion on it, even if it differs from what one would expect from someone from "their side".

But on any level past that, probably not.

The era of bipartisanship that people remember is when Reagan and Tip got a bite together, and Clinton was a moderate with "the era of big government is over." It wasn't entirely true, but it was way better back then because we were winning on the world stage and prosperous.

Things changed in 2008 when Obama went hard left, massive spending and had extremely divisive messaging.

Nowadays the only time they get together in "bipartisan" fashion is to ram through a 2,000 page goodie bill overnight that nobody's read.

The bill you're referring to passed on partisan lines.

ImSadTails posted...

The era of bipartisanship that people remember is when Reagan and Tip got a bite together, and Clinton was a moderate with "the era of big government is over." It wasn't entirely true, but it was way better back then because we were winning on the world stage and prosperous.

Things changed in 2008 when Obama went hard left, massive spending and had extremely divisive messaging.

Nowadays the only time they get together in "bipartisan" fashion is to ram through a 2,000 page goodie bill overnight that nobody's read.

What are you referring to as "extremely divisive messaging"?

nah they got rid of daylight savings

Ruvan22 posted...

What are you referring to as "extremely divisive messaging"?

It's tails. He means being black.

^ messasing like that.

Starting off with his campaign, if John McCain heard someone in the audience shout against Obama too much for his liking, Ol' McCain would step down and lecture that person for being mean to Obama. Meanwhile, Barack was out telling people that the CIA are torturers, the detainees are actually the good guys all along, and that all our army does in the middle east is "air raid villages and kill civilians."

Coming off the 9/11 unity years, I remember when we were all on the same side. Absolutely nothing about me has changed. Everyone at the time said "never forget" and "never again." I wasn't the one who forgot. I wasn't the one who turned my back on our troops. And it was so sickening what Obama and the left did. We talk about an urban-rural difference today. The heart of urban America was hit on 9/11, but people from all around the country volunteered and answered the call. Nobody from a small town is worried that they're gonna be the top target of an international terrorist attack. But they volunteered and some gave their lives so that urban, corporate headquarters would be safe. They took out the terrorist network, and prevented potential attacks on the west coast and elsewhere. They didn't care which party you belonged to. So to have Obama, and now these woke corporate heads sitting safe in their offices, bashing these people for their service and calling them racist sexist white hicks is nothing short of insulting. To be called civilian-killers and war criminals from Obama, who went on to step up the drone attacks, and Biden, who went on to bomb a bunch of kids while leaving the rest of Afghanistan to be beaten, raped or worse as child brides to the Taliban. To have these people project and call other people war criminals when these heroes were the ones on the ground, face to face in interrogations preventing more attacks on US soil, making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic countries that Joe undid overnight. Obama/Biden are hypocrites and liars who were only out for their own power, and what they did is criminal.

When a terrorist group showed up with arms, mortars, etc. to attack our embassy, Obama spent the day apologizing for some youtube video that nobody saw, as if it was the free world's fault that youtube has opinions on it that terrorists disagree with. Instead of standing up for democracy at the UN in front of the dictators who attacked our country, Obama would do the both sides "well we aren't so good either because racism." To "prove" this, he took random things that should've remained local news stories, like Zimmerman's self-defense, and he turned it into a big national race fight. "This guy would've been my son and you killed him, racist America!" Some random schoolkid in the local news, "Hey Ahmed, cool clock, you got detained for bringing something that looks like a bomb to school? Yeah that's not your fault it's because Texas and all the south and the GOP and the whole country are racist sexist fascists conspiring against you at all times." By the end of Obama's term, Michelle got in on it too and was out there calling everything in sight racist. Someone's generous enough to invite her to speak at a museum? She gives a speech bashing the place and bashing museums as a concept for being racist white power buildings. This divisiveness led directly to open race riots and the rhetoric continues today with CRT and the "racist sexist bigot" line being arguments #1, 2 and 3 in the liberal e-warrior toolbox. Obama/Biden have been a disaster for this country.

ImSadTails posted...

^ messasing like that.

Starting off with his campaign, if John McCain heard someone in the audience shout against Obama too much for his liking, Ol' McCain would step down and lecture that person for being mean to Obama. Meanwhile, Barack was out telling people that the CIA are torturers, the detainees are actually the good guys all along, and that all our army does in the middle east is "air raid villages and kill civilians."

Coming off the 9/11 unity years, I remember when we were all on the same side. Absolutely nothing about me has changed. Everyone at the time said "never forget" and "never again." I wasn't the one who forgot. I wasn't the one who turned my back on our troops. And it was so sickening what Obama and the left did. We talk about an urban-rural difference today. The heart of urban America was hit on 9/11, but people from all around the country volunteered and answered the call. Nobody from a small town is worried that they're gonna be the top target of an international terrorist attack. But they volunteered and some gave their lives so that urban, corporate headquarters would be safe. They took out the terrorist network, and prevented potential attacks on the west coast and elsewhere. They didn't care which party you belonged to. So to have Obama, and now these woke corporate heads sitting safe in their offices, bashing these people for their service and calling them racist sexist white hicks is nothing short of insulting. To be called civilian-killers and war criminals from Obama, who went on to step up the drone attacks, and Biden, who went on to bomb a bunch of kids while leaving the rest of Afghanistan to be beaten, raped or worse as child brides to the Taliban. To have these people project and call other people war criminals when these heroes were the ones on the ground, face to face in interrogations preventing more attacks on US soil, making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic countries that Joe undid overnight. Obama/Biden are hypocrites and liars who were only out for their own power, and what they did is criminal.

When a terrorist group showed up with arms, mortars, etc. to attack our embassy, Obama spent the day apologizing for some youtube video that nobody saw, as if it was the free world's fault that youtube has opinions on it that terrorists disagree with. Instead of standing up for democracy at the UN in front of the dictators who attacked our country, Obama would do the both sides "well we aren't so good either because racism." To "prove" this, he took random things that should've remained local news stories, like Zimmerman's self-defense, and he turned it into a big national race fight. "This guy would've been my son and you killed him, racist America!" Some random schoolkid in the local news, "Hey Ahmed, cool clock, you got detained for bringing something that looks like a bomb to school? Yeah that's not your fault it's because Texas and all the south and the GOP and the whole country are racist sexist fascists conspiring against you at all times." By the end of Obama's term, Michelle got in on it too and was out there calling everything in sight racist. Someone's generous enough to invite her to speak at a museum? She gives a speech bashing the place and bashing museums as a concept for being racist white power buildings. This divisiveness led directly to open race riots and the rhetoric continues today with CRT and the "racist sexist bigot" line being arguments #1, 2 and 3 in the liberal e-warrior toolbox. Obama/Biden have been a disaster for this country.

TL;DR: "I am socially inept, and have no friends."

The two parties are a facade. The real political parties are the billionaire oligarchy class, and the working class. So in a way, bipartisanship is alive and well, because the Republicans and Democrats both serve the same masters, to the same ends.

ImSadTails posted...

Coming off the 9/11 unity years,

Is that what we're calling them, now? lmfao

nexigrams posted...

The two parties are a facade. The real political parties are the billionaire oligarchy class, and the working class. So in a way, bipartisanship is alive and well, because the Republicans and Democrats both serve the same masters, to the same ends.

^

omega cookie posted...

TL;DR: "I am socially inept, and have no friends."

So to make sure I follow you, those two to three examples you quote meet your metric of "extremely divisive messaging"? I ask because the examples seem pretty comparable to statements made by his predecessors AND don't take into account the many messages of unity he put forward.