The Civil Steamroller

It’s time to end our bipartisanship fetish. It’s an understandable perversion, born of a cruel political world where politicos produce TV spots that one could confuse with “most wanted” listings and where Congress just can’t seem to accomplish anything. “End the partisan gridlock!” shout the pleebs. “Stop attacking one another and do the work of the people! Why can’t you get along, like we average Americans do every day?” But, understandably, Americans don’t like seeing their principles compromised in actual negotiations. We may sing sweetly of bipartisan rhetoric, but politicos know that there’s no spoonful of sugar in a conference committee. Nonetheless, the appearance of compromise remains a potent political tool. And it just screwed us.

First, let’s clarify something about what bipartisanship is. There are two sides of the coin: one deals with attitude, one with action. We heartily commend the sort of bipartisanship that gives politicians pause before comparing one another to Hitler or harping on their opponent’s fifteen divorces. Civility across partisan lines is critical to maintaining a public debate that deals in policy rather than personality. But the reason that we need this debate at all is that there are very real ideological differences between the parties. We have here the ever-growing conflation of politics and policy—the idea that every proposal by one party or the other is merely a partisan ploy that can and ought to be easily compromised. Compromise, compromise until the Congressional gears are so well oiled that they have no choice but to slip into action.

But at this particular moment in history, the American people have decidedly delivered a Democratic government to Washington. Might they not be expecting some Democratic legislation? Obama could not have asked for a greater mandate—his election was nearly guaranteed by the final toppling of an economy rotting at its roots. Americans believed that he was the one who could restore healthy growth, not the Republicans. Obama owes his opponents’ respect, something not exhibited by Mitch “Muppet Face” McConnell (hey, we’re columnists, not politicians). Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi need a reminder that the Republicans were not bipartisan co-winners of the 2008 election. They lost. They can sit down now. Their policies were rejected by the majority of Americans. (We think that’s called democracy?) It’s time to move forward with a coherent left-wing policy and allow the loyal opposition to provide a counterpoint while it suffer its exile in the cheap seats of the political arena. Enjoy it, wingnuts: we left them warm for you.

The recent stimulus package is the embodiment of bipartisanship misunderstood. Obama and Reid wanted a bipartisan bill so badly that they compromised away billions of dollars to ineffectual tax cuts instead of injecting stimulus funds into our faltering health care and education systems. It’s true that without sixty Democratic senators, the Republicans could have filibustered the stimulus package, the same tactic used in the days of the Democrats’ slim congressional majority under Bush. Let them. Let Mitch McConnell stand in the middle of a recession and denounce public aid through government spending. The Republicans have no economic philosophy that applies to a recession, a combustion of their beloved market capitalism. All they have left is political dogma—tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Does anyone really believe that getting rid of taxes will solve this crisis? The entire crisis was fueled by people spending money they didn’t have. Let’s not give them more opportunities to make the same mistake.

This leaves an obvious question. Why would Democrats strike a compromise between what they rightly believe to be good economic policy and a Republican political philosophy that won’t stimulate anything but talk show hosts? If Democrats have any convictions whatsoever, they need to adopt as their inspiration the famous utterance of a now-dishonored politician: “I’m a fucking steamroller!” While we wouldn’t recommend that Nancy Pelosi announce this at her next House session, it ought to become the mindset of the new Democratic majority. Politics may be the art of compromise, but somewhere along the way we lost track of where the middle actually lies. It’s not a compromise when beltway blowhards find a way to reconcile the theories of Milton Friedman with those of Friedrich Hayek. Democrats have to be brave enough to take a clear stand and move the country in the direction we’re counting on. Considering the aggravation we’ve been feeling over the past few weeks, it’s honestly hard to tell which is worse—the draconian policies of the Bush administration, which were at the very least guided by some principle, or the pathetic middling of this administration, which refuses to act on its mandate.

It seems that even when we win, we lose. The Republicans, win or lose, aggressively run the table. This is wholly unacceptable. As long as Obama refuses to define an explicitly liberal agenda and insists on compromise at every step, politics will remain trapped in the Reagan-era framework of free markets and extreme right-wing social policies. We don’t need any more meetings with Arlen Spector or the Maine Women. We need our leaders in Congress to be so steadfast that it’s not a fight, it’s a knockout. Nothin’ doin’, Obama. Remember, we voted for “Change.”

Sarah Leonard is a Columbia College junior majoring in history. Kate Redburn is a Columbia College junior majoring in history and African studies. Shock and Awe runs alternate Fridays.
Opinion@columbiaspectator.com