Sen. Obama often speaks eloquently of his intentions to change the tone of politics and foster a cooperative, bipartisan approach to government. Given the tone of the McCain campaign, however, this seems unlikely in the near term. From the Congressional Democrats’ point of view, why cooperate with people who call you names? If there is to be any hope of bipartisanship, the Republicans must change. Perhaps we can help with that.
Let’s consider the possibility that this will really be the big win that is shaping up (with due regard for the dangers of complacency). What do Democrats stand to gain from bipartisan politics that we don’t gain simply by controlling the White House, both houses of Congress and (perhaps) a 60 seat supermajority in the Senate? We can repair most of Bush’s damage and return to sane and progressive tax and fiscal policies without help from the Republicans, but there is one long-term goal that can only be reached through bipartisanship. That is finding a process for dealing with the culture wars without paralyzing the government. Is that possible?
In thinking about the possibility of a big win my initial reaction was emotional: send them to hell (or worse, political obscurity); let no Republican ever again win election. That isn’t going to happen, of course. Moreover, we shouldn’t want it to happen. Granted, I don’t expect Democrats to pursue corruption with the energy and zeal of the DeLay/Abramoff crowd, but I do expect some of them to be corruptible. If we want a reasonably stable, relatively progressive government we need to resuscitate the Republican Party in some form, if only to fight the danger of safe seats and hubris.
So who are the Republicans at this point? There is no clear leadership, but there are emerging (or re-emerging) factions. Looking at the cracks already appearing within the Republican punditry we can see at least four factions starting to separate. There are the theo-cons, the neo-cons, the anti-taxers (Norquistlings?), and the money guys. None of these factions are likely to simply fade away, so the question is how much influence each will have in the Republican Party going forward. Each is beginning to react to the prospect of a big Democratic win in its own way. EJDionne
The theo-cons will blame the loss on McCain for being unwilling to fight the true battle. They will wait for God to anoint Palin (or Huckabee), and look forward to the next round.
The neo-cons will assert that they have never been wrong and it was all Bush’s fault for poor execution. They and the anti-taxers (who have also never been wrong) will quarrel over the relative importance of an aggressive foreign policy vs. continued faith in supply-side economics, entirely oblivious to the reality that both have failed catastrophically.
The money guys will also blame it on Bush for creating conditions under which no Republican could win, and on McCain for running an incompetent campaign. Greenspan has now admitted that he might have been kinda, sorta, a little bit wrong about unregulated markets, which is possibly encouraging.
As we watch the implosion the key thing to keep in mind is that only the money guys really care about influencing government under a Democratic regime. The others will be just as happy screaming on the outside as they have been screaming on the inside. So it’s the money guys who matter, and the idea of bipartisanship is only viable if they reassert control of the national Republican Party. They are the only available partners for peace.
So how do we induce the money guys to rethink their alliances and move toward bipartisanship? Let’s look at their options.
- Persistence. Keep playing Rovian politics and hope for a better outcome next time. This would mean betting that the Obama presidency will fail, and working to make that happen. It might succeed for a while if they retain filibuster power in the Senate, but it requires naivete on the part of the Obama team and absolute loyalty from Republican Senators. It might well produce gridlock until 2010, when (as kos has pointed out repeatedly) the Senate map is highly favorable for the Democrats, who would make a point of hanging gridlock on the Republicans. Not a very appealing gamble.
- Reformulation. Eject or ignore the right wing of theo-cons, neo-cons and anti-taxers, and return to responsible government. This would probably mean at least a decade out of power, with the strong possibility of causing the right wing to bolt and form a viable third party. Also not a very appealing gamble.
Since neither option looks very good for the money guys, they’ll probably go with persistence – unless we can provide some incentives to reformulate. We need a strategy to encourage them to make the right choice. In the short term we don’t have a lot of carrots we want to offer them, but we will have a number of sticks. Here are some suggested elements of such a strategy.
The first element is to make Republicans own their defeat, to feel it and acknowledge it. Make change happen, even when they resist. Move aggressively on foreign policy (Iraq, al Qaeda) and on taxes. If we have 60 in the Senate, push harder on corporate taxes and kill all the big corporate tax breaks. Kill lobbying; we can’t outlaw it, but we can probably make it more transparent and less effective.
The second element is to illuminate the Bush disaster. Restore government functionality, starting at Justice. Get the theo-cons and neo-cons out of the executive branch. Investigate and prosecute, right up to Cheney and Bush if the evidence can be found. For Republicans who survive the scrutiny this will permit them to call the Bush years an aberration, driven by the ideological overreaching of the right wing, and separate themselves. We want them to do this.
The third element is to convince the money guys that the Democratic ascendancy might last a long time, and that it would be good to make peace early. Move quickly on a stimulus package based around jobs, alternative energy and green infrastructure, followed immediately by health care reform. Give voters what they want, even if it isn’t perfect.
The fourth element is to counter the noise machine, but do it from outside government. There is no reason why Fox should ever again be granted an interview with a Democratic office holder. Let them whine. We are the masters of the new media, and we should use it to counter-attack the wing-nuts. Move the discussion in the traditional media to the causes of the failure of the Republican agenda. The Dionne column linked above is a step in the right direction.
The hope behind this strategy is that by 2010 the money guys will have thought twice about the odds of winning another takeover any time soon, but it's only a hope. We’ll know by watching where they put their money in that election. If they are recruiting candidates who differentiate themselves from the wing-nuts we can begin to look for bipartisanship opportunities. If the few remaining "moderates" cross over and support Obama's judicial nominees, if they avoid paralysis, perhaps we can take it as a sign. Until then, backs to the wall.
The reader may have noted that the suggested strategic elements are generally things that we should hope the Democrats would pursue in any event, as part of good governance. True. Because in spite of Sen. Obama’s best intentions, bipartisanship isn’t a requirement for effective government; it just makes it easier and more pleasant. I don’t really expect the Republicans to drop the posture of partisanship any time soon, if ever, even as they recede into a petulant minority. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised, but 60 in the Senate looks like the better bet, in 2010 if not this year. The culture wars seem likely to continue, indefinitely, and the rest of this stuff can’t wait.