The theory is that if Democrats make a show out of reaching out to Republicans, but Republicans slap Democrats down every time and obstruct for the sake of obstructing, then Democrats will gain politically.
The reality is that Republicans gain in the polls if Democrats fail to pass legislation that improves people's lives, no matter the political theater of obstruction.
But let's take a slightly different angle on the charge that Obama is "naïve" about power and partisanship. Suppose you were as non-naïve about it as I am -- but your job wasn't writing about politics, it was running for president? What should you do? In that case, your responsibility is not merely to describe the situation exactly, but to find a way to subvert it. In other words, perhaps we are being too literal in believing that "hope" and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.
Whether it was part of some eleven-dimensional chess plan or not, thirteen months not the Obama administration, this appears to be pretty much what Democrats have done. Democrats have bent over backward to at least try and make it appear as though they are reaching out to Republicans. And, following the script, Republicans have done a good job of obstructing Democrats for the sake of obstructing Democrats.
The problem for Democrats is that their plan resulted in a massive improvement in the Republican electoral situation, rather than improving their own:
Key electoral indicators, Election Day 2008 and now
Over the last fifteen and a half months, Democrats have lost 4-5% in net partisan self-identification, around 9% in the National House ballot, and around 15% in net party favorability. And, Mitch McConnell is still saying Republicans will obstruct legislation that they will ultimately vote for:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that Republicans "may well" support the jobs bill, though that doesn't necessarily mean the GOP will help Democrats on Monday's procedural vote.
Republicans are paying no political price for their obstruction. Quite to the contrary, they are actually reaping a political reward from it. The Democratic plan of delaying legislation in order to make a big, public show of reaching out to Republicans was a miserable failure.
This is demonstrative not of bad execution of the Democratic plan to reach out to Republicans and make them look like obstructionists, but rather of a faulty theory behind that plan. The problem isn't that Democrats haven't done enough to reach out to Republicans, or to get out the message about Republican obstruction. The problem is that the public doesn't care about political process, which makes attempts to publically reach out to Republicans useless political theater that does nothing except delay important legislation. The public wants their lives to improve, and doesn't care about process stories or the 24-hour news cycle.
I was recently pursing through old political commentary, when I came upon these gems. The context: this was immediately after President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; pundits were thoroughly analyzing the event. The predictable reactions from both parties, however, were most humorous.
Michael Steele immediately shot out a press release criticizing Obama:
The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.
Wow. That was quite harsh. It's generally considered polite to congratulate a guy when he's won an award. And when that guy is our president, disingenuously criticizing him at every turn doesn't exactly do our country any good.
The Democratic National Committee's way of pointing this out, however, is just hilarious:
The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.
The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.
When I read that "The Republican party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists," I chuckled for a good long while. The rest of the statement actually makes a good argument, but that sentence's hyperbole is just ridiculously funny.
A Chris Bowers Golden Oldie
From Mon May 05, 2008. Original HERE.
Is there a progressive movement? This question has seemed particularly relevant over the last two weeks, as support for Barack Obama has washed away apparent long-standing principles of the movement: do not legitimize Fox News and Democrats should become more partisan. Now, apparently, we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether. If the Obama campaign can change the principles of the movement so quickly, perhaps there isn't a movement at all.
Perhaps a different question is necessary: what is a political movement, anyway? Thinking back over the 20th century, the defining characteristic seems to be a large-scale political undertaking that not only had goals of changing governmental institutions, but that changed the way people lived by shifting the balance of power in other major institutions as well. A political movement seeks to reorganize society on a far broader level than simply changing governmental policy. Examples include:
The labor movement fundamentally changed the economic structure of this and other countries by granting wage-laborers more power over the American workplace.
In addition to expanding access to government, the civil right's movement sought to reorganize educational, housing and employment patterns throughout the country. Other examples from this time period include the Black Panthers and the "counter-culture," which were primarily organized around institutions other than governmental policy (law enforcement and cultural consumption).
Radical Islamicist movements have worked to reorganize virtually every major institution in a given society, from education to religion to familial structures to cultural consumption.
A political movement always targets more than governmental policy change, since only changing policy would not alter the general framework of how people live in a given society. With that in mind, in what ways is the contemporary progressive movement going beyond seeking governmental policy change, and directly altering the way people interact with other major institutions in our society?
Looking over the major ideological institutions in America--the family, education, mass media, religion, and the workplace--the largest and most rapid changes are currently taking place in the latter three. By lowering the cost of information, the Internet has dramatically changed both the media landscape specifically and cultural production / consumption patterns more generally. Also, in terms of religion, nationally there is a broad movement away from self-identification as Christian, and even a dramatic re-organization within Christianity itself. Within the workplace and our larger economic structures, the rise of the Creative Class has had a major impact on the types of jobs available in America, and also on income inequality. This isn't to say that there are not major changes in other major ideological institutions like education and the family, just that the changes in the above three are far more pronounced in recent years.
Now, which of these three major changes can be identified a part of a "progressive movement?" The religious shifts don't really work, since the movement away from traditional religious identification and institutions is not organized by any group of people, and is simply happening on its own. Since it is at least partially a side-effect of a rising corporate power, income inequality, and de-industrialization, the rise of the Creative Class doesn't really work, whether or not most members of the Creative Class tend to be progressive. This leaves us with the lower cost of information, and resulting explosion in cultural production, brought on by the Internet. Perhaps the de-centralization of mass media consumption, the public sphere interaction, and cultural production brought on by the Internet is the progressive movement. It is the clearest example of how daily life has changed in a progressive way over the last decade. The medium is the movement.
Identifying the medium, and the changing cultural and media consumption / production patterns it has created, as the progressive movement itself helps provide perspective both on Barack Obama and on policy priorities for maintaining a healthy movement. First, changing viewpoints that Obama's campaign has created about Fox News and partisanship will not be isolated incidents. Since the consumption and production patterns themselves are the major change, the movement is ultimately lacking in fixed precepts. We should expect other changes in the future, including an inevitable rejection of Obama's ideas on partisanship and Fox News. Second, in order to maintain a healthy movement and the positive feedback loops the movement creates for progressivism, telecom policy and net neutrality should be understood as top, non-negotiable policy priorities. If net neutrality is ended, then the contemporary progressive movement, along with all progressive policy and lifestyle changes it promises, will come to an end. The movement is not just dependant upon the medium, but is in fact embedded in it. If net neutrality is ended, it will shift control of the medium away from individuals with broadband access, and toward large corporations. If the movement is the medium, then control over the medium for the average Internet user must be maintained, and expanded, at all costs.
Finally, from a "medium is the movement" perspective, the choice between Clinton and Obama isn't really even a choice at all. It's Obama by a mile.
In this post earlier today, I wondered how many people are actually represented by the senators voting for and against health care reform. Well, I did some research and calculations, and came to the following conclusion regarding the party-line vote for cloture on the Manager's Amendment early Monday morning: not only did it enjoy support of 60 of the 100 senators, but those senators were elected by the votes of almost twice as many Americans as the senators who opposed cloture. About 80.1 million voters elected senators in the Democratic caucus, while only about 43.8 million voted for senators in the Republican caucus. I explain my method and show my work on the flip.
This project was inspired by the insipid yearning for "broad bipartisan support" expressed by DC insider fogeys like Broder, Gergen, and their ilk. The most powerful answer to their mewling, I think, is this: health care reform obviously enjoys broad-based support, since the senators who oppose it, all of them Republicans, were elected by half as many voters as the senators who support it. Of course, the same retort will work for any party-line vote in this Congress, but I think it might be useful to be able to point to the actual numbers.
Another strong answer to the same argument, of course, is that the Democratic caucus includes not only Democrats, but also Independents. Since one of those Independents (Moldy Joe Lieberman) wields more leverage over the content of legislation than the majority of the Democratic party, I think any legislation that gets his vote should be considered "bipartisan."
Anyway, the complete Senate vote table is on the flip.
I just finished reading this Digby post on the Versailles fetish for "bipartisan" solutions, and I had an idea for framing an argument that may be useful in this and other ongoing political fights regarding the Senate. The data we need, which I'm sure is publicly available, is this: how many votes did each senator receive when winning his/her Senate seat?
"Centrists" like Broder, Gergen, etc., get off on wringing their hands over how a lack of bipartisan Congressional support shows that a piece of legislation doesn't have genuine, broad-based public support. When (if) the Senate passes its version of health care reform, I'd like to see a study that reveals how many Americans actually voted for the senators who supported the bill, compared with how many Americans voted for the senators who opposed it. That would give us a number to offer in opposition to that idea.
If, say, supporters of the bill represent 60 million American voters while opponents represent only 40 million, that should serve as a pretty powerful piece of evidence that the measure has broad-based support. Given the population differences between red and blue states, the number should be even more lopsided than that. (Maybe for appointed senators, we'd substitute the number of votes received by the governor who appointed the senator).
Based on what I've read here, it seems to me that someone in the OpenLeft community has a lot of this data already gathered together, so this is partly a bleg to find out if that's true. If nobody has it, I'll see if I can assemble it from online sources. Such a table of data could be useful on any vote, given that progressive priorities tend to be supported by senators from more populous states.
UPDATE: O.K., I did the work. By my calculations, senators in the Democratic Congress were elected by almost twice as many American voters as senators in the Republican Caucus - 80.1 million to 43.8 million. More detail here.
PPP released numbers today arguing that little of the pushback against President Obama is coming from the left. To demonstrate this, they focused on the subset of people who self-identify as both liberal and Democrats in their poll:
Our new poll suggests that liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread. His approval rating with liberal Democrats is 95%, with only 3% disapproving of him.
On health care 88% of voters in that group say they're with Obama and only 7% are opposed. We simply are not seeing any broad evidence of push back toward him from the left for not advocating for single payer.
One caveat to these numbers should be that not all people who self-identify as liberals in polls also self-identify as Democrats. Most self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, but not all.
According to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, 20% of national adults self-identified as liberal. Also according to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, liberals were 37% of self-identified Democrats, 18% of self-identified Independents, and 4% of self-identified Republicans:
Using Gallup's national party IDs, and cross-multiplying to get the percentages to involved reach exactly 100% (some people refused to self-identify), that would mean 63% of self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, 32% self-identify as Independents, and 5% self-identify as Republicans.
Currently, Gallup's weekly tracking poll shows President Obama with an 78% approval rating among all self-identified liberals. This includes an 89% job approval rating among liberal Democrats, and a 33% approval rating among moderate / liberal Republicans. Even though Gallup did not provide data for this subset, when combined with their yearly averages to date, these cross-tabs suggest President Obama has a 62-65% approval rating among self-identified Liberal Independents.
A 62-65% approval rating is still pretty high. The interesting point is that people who self-identify as both liberal and Independent diverge so sharply from people who self-identify as both liberal and Democratic. Partisanship within ideological groups seems to have a big impact on overall political outlook.
There is a substantial minority of self-identified liberals who disapprove of President Obama's job performance--most of them just happen not to self-identify as Democrats. In most cases, this is probably not because they think the Obama administration has not gone far enough to the left for its own sake, but rather because they don't see the country getting any better, and conclude that is because President Obama has not gone far enough to the left. Afghanistan probably isn't helping much, either.
Overall, Gallup estimates that about 4-5% of the country are liberals who do not approve of President Obama's job performance. This actually means President Obama is performing better among liberals than the Democratic Party as a whole. Once again, according to Gallup, about 8% of the country thinks that the Democratic Party is too conservative, although the poll used in that measurement had a far higher margin of error than all of the other polls listed here.
Previously, I estimated President Obama's job performance among the Democratic Presidential primary electorate to be 75%. Further, only about one-third of those who did not approve of President Obama self-identified as liberal. Currently, due to a slight drop in his overall approval among liberals, I would estimate President Obama's approval rating among the Democratic primary electorate to be 74%, with slightly more than one-third of those who do not approve self-identifying as liberals.
People should be wary of questioning Blue Dogs' credentials as Democrats, one of the group's co-chairmen said Tuesday.(...)
"I'll tell you what, by Blue Dogs running as Democrats, we face a handicap running in our districts," Matheson told CBS News's "Washington Unplugged" webcast.
"There are other people who, by running as Democrats, they automatically win," he said. "So I think that Blue Dogs are true Democrats because we wear that label even when it may actually affect us in a negative way in our elections -- we still wear that label."
OK, Matheson, let's put your claim to the test. Do Blue Dogs wear the Democratic label? Let's take a look at the campaign websites for the Blue Dog leadership:
Rep. Sandlin-Herseth: No mention of the word "Democrat" on her front page. Instead, she describes herself as "Our Independent for South Dakota." The word "Independent" is in bold-face.
Rep. Hill: Again, no mention of the word "Democrat" anywhere on the front page of his campaign website. He does, however, put "reach across party lines," in bold-face, at the top of his accomplishments list.
Rep. Matheson: Again, no mention of the word "Democrat" on the front page. He does, however, describe himself as "an effective and independent voice for Utahns."
Rep. Shuler: The word "Democrat" does actually appear on Shuler's front page--once. In the "latest news" feed on the website, it reads "Buncombe County Democrats plan "United We Stand" rally -- Asheville Citizen-Times." Shuler also does not refer to himself as an independent, so I guess he does a little better.
Way to wave the party flag, Blue Dogs. They really wear the label on their sleeve.
But wait-there's more! Let's look at front-page of the campaign websites of the twelve most endangered Blue Dogs (minus the already mentioned Baron Hill) according to Charlie Cook:
According to Pollster.com, among all American adults President Obama has a 52.2% approval rating. Further, among all American adults, only 22.8% self-identify as Republican. Finally, among self-identified Republicans, only 16.5% approve of President Obama's performance in office. Simple multiplication of these numbers shows that 3.8% of American adults both approve of President Obama's job performance, and self-identify as Republican. It also shows that President Obama's current coalition of supporters is only 7.2% Republican.
If one looks only at registered and likely voters, the Republican composition of President Obama's current coalition does not increase much. Even then, only 5.8% of the county are both self-identified Republicans and Obama job approvers, and President Obama's coalition is only 11.4% Republican.
By contrast, self-identified Democrats who approve of President Obama are 28.7% of all American adults, and 55.0% of President Obama's current coalition. Among registered and likely voters, Democratic self-identifiers soar to 65.2% of President Obama's coalition.
There are many implications of these numbers, but the primary one is that we are still a partisan, polarized nation, and not just in D.C. To this point, all attempts at bi-partisan, national coalitions have continued to prove futile. That really shouldn't be surprising, given that no presidential candidate or political party one has ever won more than 61.05% of the vote in a national election in about 200 years.
We can complain all we want about the broken promises of politicians, but at this point any voter who believes any politician when that politician says that s/he will bridge the divide between the parties--well, that voter is simply being foolish. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eight zillion times, shame on me.
The bulk of your "A list" progessive bloggers are now between the ages of 30 and 50. Many blog readers also fall into this age range. Those of us in this demographic are too young to have personal memories of progressive political power. There was some of that in the 1960s according to what I've seen on the History Channel and in books but I've never felt it.
This age group is also too old for unfettered idealism. Our political memories include the dark Bush-Cheney years, the "pragmatic" Clinton years (and an impeachment) and, for some, the Reagan-Bush years and the less-than-successful Carter years. There may be some idealism still lurking inside but it's, well, fettered idealism.
And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, your thinking can become limited by what has been rather than what could be. I think that, in part, explains the persistence of voices, even in Democratic circles, underestimating the chances for real progressive change. Today Nate Silver is acknowledging his error on the chances of success for the public option (though he noted, presciently, that is wasn't a done deal yet). As usual, Nate is trying to be reality-based when making predictions. He has not been alone is expressing pessimism on the public option's chances.
I would suggest to Nate and other empiricists that the ground has shifted and if you want to be reality-based you need to appreciate the new terrain. I'll describe this inside and offer what I think are reality-based reasons for embracing optimism for a progressive future.
President Obama has repeatedly emphasized a bi-partisan approach to politics. Early on in Obama's presidency, the highly respected Pew poll declared that "Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era," indicating that perhaps the country was following the President's lead in de-emphasizing partisanship. More recent polling trends on partisan self-identification suggests that this trend has continued. Over the last five months, Pollster.com shows self-identified Independents gaining significant ground at the expense of both Democrats and Republicans in their partisan self-identification chart:
However, before we declare a new non-partisan, Independent dominated era of politics, it would behoove us to look at the numbers more closely. This is because the polling data suggesting a sharp rise in Americans identifying as non-partisan is among all adults, not among the smaller percentage of Americans who actually vote. Among registered and likely voters, it turns out that the percentage of non-partisan self-identifiers is actually declining:
Over the past year, registered and likely voters in America have demonstrated little, if any, change in partisan self-identification. Democrats are still at 39%, just as they were on Election Day in 2008. Republicans have gained about 2%, moving from 31% to 33% of the electorate. Independents have actually dropped from 27% to 26%. It is also worth noting that third party voting in congressional elections hit a 20-year low in 2008.
The rise in Independents among less likely voters, and the corresponding lack of change among more likely voters, can perhaps be explained as an increasing alienation gap in America. Those people who were only loosely attached to civic institutions like major political parties have become even less attached, while with a greater degree of participation are doubling down. It is perhaps a symptom of increasing socioeconomic stratification in America, and with the seeming inability--or lack of desire--of elected officials to do anything about it.,br>
While their disgust might be understandable, the increasing non-partisan trend among non-voters is not going to change the political dynamic of this country at all. The more people who drop out, the more that powerful institutions will solidify their grasp on the system as a whole.
Even though the national media narrative is now portraying the public option as the focal point of the debate on health care reform, that debate hasn't held up health insurance reform by even a single day. Instead of the public option, it is the process focus on bipartisanship, and negotiating with bad-faith Republicans, that is the hold-up. Consider the following:
Five Congressional committees--three in the House and two in the Senate--have been given purview over health insurance reform legislation. Four of those committees have passed a health insurance reform bill. The only one to not pass a bill is the Senate Finance Committee.
All four bills to pass committee have a public option. The one committee expected not to report a public option is the one that hasn't passed a bill. As such, the public option is not the source of this delay.
Of the 65+ members of Congress who have threatened to vote against health care reform legislation without a public option, not a single one of them sits on the Senate Finance committee. The Progressive Block is not the source of this delay.
Not a single Republican voted for any of the four bills to pass a Congressional committee so far. The only committee where Republicans are being given equal negotiating power is the one that hasn't passed a bill. As such, it seems that Republicans are holding up the bill, not the public option or the Progressive Block.
Whatever attention the debate on the public option is drawing, the variable holding up health insurance reform is the degree of bipartisanship sought in the process by the Senate Finance Committee. It is a focus on bipartisan process is holding up health insurance reform, not the public option.
While logically fallacies are still a fresh topic in my mind, allow me to take issue with another one that has always annoyed me. Specifically, I am referring to the idea that Democrats, a partisan organization, are interchangeable with ideologically left-wing organizations:
"The President discussed how the current tone and culture in Washington made it more difficult than it has been in the past to work in a bipartisan fashion. In particular, he singled out Republican Senators who are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion even in the context of a vocal minority in their party who doubt that the President was born in the US. In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see 'left wing groups attack fellow 'Democrats.'
Since President Obama isn't actually asking any of the left-wing organizations running ads against Democrats on health care to stop doing so, I find this irritating primarily on a logical level rather than on a political one.
First, if President Obama assigns such high value to non-partisanship, why does he wish that left-wing groups would stop attacking "fellow Democrats?" Attacking "fellow Democrats" would be a non-partisan act. As such, one would think that President Obama would praise it, rather than wish it would stop. Make he only values bi-partisanship, rather than non-partisanship.
Second, partisanship is not interchangeable with ideology. Just because a group is left-wing does not make them a Democrat, and just because someone is a Democrat does not make tem left-wing. Many of the Democrats being targeted by left-wing ads would agree. Check out the Blue Dogs explaining the etymology of their name:
The 52 conservative and moderate Democrats in the group hail from every region of the country, although the group acknowledges some southern ancestry which accounts for the group's nickname. Taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat, the "Blue Dog" moniker was taken by members of The Coalition because their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.
It is hypocritical for Democrats who describe themselves as "conservative and moderate" and who attack the Democratic Party for choking them blue to say that they should be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups on the grounds that both they and the left-wing groups are all Democrats. If Democrats want to be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups, then at a minimum those Democrats should at least describe themselves as left-wing. Otherwise, a double-standard in simply being invoked.
Leaving the logical nitpicking aside for a moment, one thing I do like about this story is that President Obama is offering vocal support to a center-right position (getting left-wing groups to stop attacking conservatives and moderates), but then not doing anything to make that center-right position a reality. It is nice to see that he sometimes only offers symbolic support to center-right wing positions, too.
Following the August recess, Democrats appear ready to drop "bi-partisan" negotiations, and push health care through with a party-line vote:
With the health care bill languishing in the Senate and under fire in the House, Democratic leaders are quietly preparing for Plan B.
Under the scenario now being discussed, bi-partisan talks would be aborted and parliamentary maneuvers used to force the bill through with a party-line vote.
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., still has time to try to work out a deal with his Republican counterpart Chuck Grassley, but fellow Democrats are growing restless.
"There's rising disgruntlement with how Baucus has handled this," a senior Democratic aide tells ABC News. "We have to look at other options."
Good. There were several problems with the Baucus "bi-partisan" plan:
Over-representative of Republicans. The mini-committee of six included an even number of Democrats and Republicans (three on each side), even though Democrats control 60% of the seats in both the House and the Senate.
Republicans weren't negotiating in good faith This is demonstrated by Enzi's demand that, other than the gang of six, all other negotiations in Congress and with the Obama administration must be dropped until they three Republicans in the gang agree to anything. Demanding total power over all negotiations is not actual negotiation. It is just a power grab.
For the reasons outlined above, the Baucus bi-partisan plan was flawed in both concept and in execution. Further, whatever function it might have served as a public display to attempt bi-partisanship has already been accomplished.
At this point, if Democrats don't circumvent Baucus and Republicans, we are doing ourselves, and the country, far more harm than good. Abstract process concepts like bipartisanship won't reduce the percentage of GDP spent on health care, and certainly won't cover any more uninsured Americans.
"On the Senate side, there is more outreach ... to Republicans than was the case during the early days of the stimulus," said Collins, who said she has heard frequently from the administration and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a key architect of the health care effort. "It's in everyone's interest to try to advance a bipartisan bill."
Actually, the goal of health care legislation is to reduce the cost of health care and increase access to health care. By contrast, the goal of bipartisanship is to get Democrats and Republicans to agree with each other. Those are different goals with no inherent connection.
Let's say, for example, that no changes whatsoever are made to the Senate HELP committee's health care bill before it is passed into law. Now, what will be the real-world impact of the health care bill in the following two scenarios?
It is passed into law with every Republican voting for it.
It is passed into law with no Republicans voting for it.
While I don't know what the exact impact will be in either scenario, I do know that the impact will be exactly the same in both scenarios. This is because legislation doesn't change based on the number of Republicans who vote for a bill. Rather, Republicans change legislation in order to be able to vote for it.
Bipartisanship has nothing to do with reducing the costs of health care or increasing access to health care. However, bipartisanship has a lot do with providing politicians political cover in the event that a piece of legislation fails to deliver on its ostensible purpose. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi explained this pretty well last year during the bailout:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling Democrats that she will not support President Bush's $700 billion bailout of the financial sector unless there is significant Republican support for the controversial plan.(...)
In the Senate, Republicans have also lined up to oppose their president's bill, which led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to worry that he may not have enough Republican votes to pass the package.
"We need Republican votes to help us," he said. "This is a Republican package and we need Republican votes."
The purpose of bipartisanship is so that, in the event that you pass legislation that is unpopular and / or does not end up working, then it is impossible to take all of the blame for it.
That is the purpose of bipartisanship in health care reform legislation. Not reducing costs or increasing access.
Pollster.com's methodology of putting all polls into a regression line was vindicated by the 2008 elections, so these findings cannot be dismissed. Both Democratic (by about 3%) and Republican (by about 4%) self-identification have increased over the past five weeks. Independents have declined by 7-8%. This means that we are going through a period in our national political discourse where people are taking sides, not moving toward an undifferentiated center.
This shift coincides with the tea-parties, the torture debate, Specter's party switch, and the abortion debate. All in all, you have to hand it to wingnuts: even when they are out of power, right-wingers are still driving the debate, and still good at making people take sides. Even the Specter switch led most to discuss the implications it held for the Republican Party, rather than for Democrats or progressives.
What Republicans appear to be doing right now is shoring up their base with these arguments. They are bringing their anti-government, anti-choice, harsh foreign policy voters back into the fold. It has allowed them to make up some ground on Democrats, though they still trail by a sizable 8%. It seems unlikely to me that this is a path back to competitiveness for Republicans in and of itself. Even with all of their best recruits, they are likely to lose more Senate seats in 2010. However, a more coherent base, combined with an economy that is still struggling in 2012, might be enough to make for a close election in 3.5 years time. (That is, it will be competetive, unless either Romney or Gingrich is the nominee. Those two will never become President).
AP-GfK: +8% "right direction" since February 17th
Daily Kos: +10% "right direction" since February 5th
Ipsos / McClatchy: +3% "right direction" since February 9th
CBS News: +16% "right direction" since February 4th
ABC / WaPo: +11% "right direction" since February 22nd
Diageo / Hotline: +7% "right direction" since March 2nd
Unsurprisingly, this increased sense that the country is already improving comes entirely from Democrats and Independents. According to the crosstabs of the three most recent Daily Kos "state of the nation" polls (including the one released today), 50.3% of Democrats, 46.3% of Independents, and 29.3% of Republicans believe the country is moving in the right direction. By contrast, for the first three polls conducted entirely after President Obama's January 20th inauguration (starting on January 26th and ending on February 12th), the partisan "right direction" crosstabs were 33.7% of Democrats, 34.7% of Republicans, and 34.0% of Independents. Here is the rate of change over that period of time:
Change in % indicating country is moving in the "right direction," 1/26-2/12 and 4/5-4/23 Democrats: +16.67%
Independents: +10.33%
Republicans: -4.67%
So, belief in whether the country is moving in the "right direction" is highly contingent on partisan affiliation. Democrats and Independents increasingly see the country as moving in the "right direction," while Republicans increasingly view the country as headed in the "wrong direction."
This shows, first, that opinion on the direction of the country is mainly an ideological belief based on perceived effectiveness of policies that have yet to have a substantial impact. Second, it also shows that the country probably is moving in the right direction. The last eight years have consistently shown us that whenever rank and file Democrats and rank and file Republicans have opposing views on the direction of the country, it is highly likely that Democrats are the ones on the right track. Right up until the end of his presidency, even after the economic collapse, a majority of Republicans still approved of President Bush's job performance. If these same Republicans are now turning against President Obama, then it is a pretty good bet our current President (and Congress, given their rising approval ratings) is doing something right.
As a lefty, talk of increased bipartisanship in Washington has often made me squeamish. My discomfort with bipartisanship stems from a long track record of supposedly "bipartisan" legislation passing with unanimous support from congressional Republicans and the support of roughly half of all congressional Democrats. Back in December, Matt and I pointed to twenty recent instances (see here and here) where right-wing legislation passed the Senate with this "bipartisan" pattern of support. In practice, the actual meaning of "bipartisanship" has been "a substantial portion of Democrats supporting Republican legislation." That should be enough to make any lefty squeamish at the mention of "bipartisanship."
Now, new information from The Hill further demonstrates the connection between "bipartisanship" and centrist or center-right ideological predisposition. The Hill asked all forty-one Republican Senators which Democratic Senators they found easiest to work with. Collectively, the 41 Republicans gave 91 total responses (some Republicans listed more than one Democrat). While progressives such as Ted Kennedy (mentioned by nine Republicans) and Tom Harkin (mentioned by five Republicans) finished high on the list, overall there was a fairly strong connection between how "bi-partisan" a Democratic Senator was considered to be, and how right-wing that Democratic Senator's lifetime voting record was according to Progressive Punch. I also collected data on Evan Bayh's "conservodem" group, which was both more "bipartisan" and overwhelmingly more right-wing than the rest of the Democratic Senate.
The Pew Internet and American Life project has just released their survey detailing online political engagement in the 2008 campaign. In the category of "everyone already knew that," were findings that more people are using the Internet than ever, the Internet is now at least equal to newspapers as a source of campaign news, political activism is increasing online, Obama votes are more politically active online than McCain voters, and young people use the Internet more than old people. Well, duh.
However, as is typical for Pew, there were also some very interesting findings. In particular, people are now seeking out partisan websites in much greater numbers than ever before. In fact, partisan news sources are much more sought out online than non-partisan websites (emphasis mine):
Fully a third of online political users (33%) now say that when they get online political information most of the sites they visit share their point of view - up from 26% who said that in 2004. This rise in partisan information-seeking matches a decline in the number of online political users who say most of the sites they visit do not have a particular point of view. In 2004, 32% of online political users said most of the sites they visited had no particular point of view and that percentage dropped to 25% in 2008. There was no difference between 2004 and 2008 in the number of online political users who said most of the sites they visit challenge their point of view.
Both Democrats and Republicans are now more likely to gravitate towards online sites with an explicitly partisan slant than they were in 2004. Fully 44% of Democratic online political users (up from 34% in 2004) and 35% of Republican online political users (up from 26% in 2006) now say that they mostly visit sites that share their political point of view. However, the biggest change between elections occurred among the young. In 2004, 22% of online political users ages 18-24 said most of the sites they visit shared their views. That doubled to 43% of online political users in that age range in 2008.
Those who are most information hungry are the most likely to browse sites that match their views.
It is not surprising that partisanship is increasing even as President Obama is praised for his talk of trying to get past partisanship. Whether the country's public thirst for bipartisanship is an act of projection in pretending that partisanship is something foisted upon it from the outside even though it is rising up internally, or whether it is a backlash response from the dwindling ranks of non-partisan in response to an inevitable rising tide of partisans remains unclear. The truth is that it is probably a mix of both, combined with a nice dash of politicians offering up fake solutions (like bipartisanship) to real problems.
The truth is, however, that no one, even President Obama, can stem or slow a cultural shift of this magnitude. For 7% of Internet users to stop reading non-partisan websites in just four years is a broad social trend bigger than any one person. The country is getting more partisan, whether we like it or not. The best idea is probably to start figuring out how best to manage an increasingly partisan country, rather than pretending it can be wished away by Republicans and Democrats eating lunch together.
Much of the world seems to love Barack Obama. At home his popularity is mostly among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents. I presented some historical data on President's job approval ratings last week which showed that Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson started their terms with public support well over 70 percent. You can't get numbers that high without significant support from opposition-party voters.
Even when Richard Nixon was elected in a closely fought 1968 race he enjoyed early public support of 65 percent thanks in part to 55 percent support among Democrats. The support gap between Democrats and Republicans was 29 points according to this report by Pew. But look at the trend in the partisan gap (all polls from early spring of first term):
Nixon: 29 point gap
Carter: 25
Reagan: 36
Bush 1: 38
Clinton: 45
Bush 2: 51
Obama: 61
That's a pretty clear partisan trend. Some more details on Obama's huge gap. He is supported by 88 percent of Democrats which is the highest support by voters of the President's own party among the ones listed here. His support among Republicans is only 27 percent which is almost the lowest level of support from opposition voters among those listed here. The only one who did worse? Bill Clinton, with 26 percent support among Republicans in 1993.
The country is becoming more partisan. Mass media are becoming more partisan (and more fractured). What does it all mean?
It turns out that the Blue Dogs will increase their membership beyond the 51 they had previously announced. Now, they are targeting 56 members, although they aren't telling you who those members are:
Leaders of the centrist Democratic coalition have expanded their membership to 56 members, balancing the group's desire for influence in the caucus against the need to remain exclusive.
Under the 20 percent cap that was in place during the 110th Congress, they would have allowed only 51 members. That number was reached last week, causing many, including the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), to speculate that they'd reached their limit.
But leaders say that at least four new members are under active consideration, and there's actually room for five.(...)
They wouldn't give any clue about who those members are.
As an activist that has been a part of Act Blue pages that have helped raise over two million dollars for Congressional Democrats (see here, here and here), I find both the growth of the Blue Dogs, and the lack of transparency about the potential membership, intensely frustrating. I am so friggin' sick of raising money for Democrats who, upon their arrival in Congress, do whatever they can to openly distance themselves from both me and the causes I believe in. Why do I keep giving money to people who will respond by publicly slapping me in the face?
There is a fundamental, and intentional, lack of ideological transparency in the Democratic Party. When candidates are running for federal office, we rarely know what ideological caucus they will eventually participate in. This is intentional, because Democratic candidates want to tap into the large small door networks have appeared over the last decade, and the grassroots activists who make those networks valuable tend to be much more left-wing than the pro-corporate Blue Dogs and New Democratic caucuses that these candidates join en masse. Almost all of the new Democrats elected to Congress last year have apparently joined either the New Democrats (15 freshman members) or the Blue Dogs (seven or eight new members). Once in a while you get an Alan Grayson, they appear to be in a distinct minority.
It is high time that Democratic House candidates announce, during the primary season, which ideological caucus, if any, they intend to join should they end up in Congress. I am done raising money for Blue Dogs, although I will at least consider New Democrats (for example, the largely progressive Populist caucus was founded by a New Dem.) In 2010, unless a candidate directly tells me that they will not apply for Blue Dog membership once s/he is in Congress, then I am not raising money for that candidate, period.
This gets to a fundamental lack of transparency in the two-party system itself. Particularly on the Democratic side, you really don't know what you are getting in ideological terms when you work to help elect a Democrat to Congress these days. What baffles me is that many actually want to increase this lack of transparency even further, as they find partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans to be abhorrent. Calls for more bi-partisanship strike me as nothing more than calls for even less transparency in the ideological bent of congressional candidates. While that might attract some people, I am tired of the two-faced obfuscation, where right-wing Democrats raise huge amounts of money from largely left-wing small donors, and then, once in Congress, regularly work to thwart progressive governance.
