For at least the next two years, the impotent Republican minority in the House of Representatives will produce nothing but drama and headlines. And the theme of this show will be partisanship. Because President Barack Obama promised a new era of bipartisanship, whenever he supports a Democratic policy, Republicans are crying foul. Disregarding the fact that liberals got "partisan-ed" pretty hard during the Bush II years, let's examine what bipartisanship really means.
First, "partisan" does not deserve such a negative connotation; it describes how our legislature functions. Our two parties have widely differing ideologies and will govern accordingly. When Obama won, the phrase "mandate for change" surfaced-the sense that a clear majority of Americans trusted that this Democratic president had a better platform to fix our country. For Obama to now embrace Republican plans for a stimulus package (mainly tax breaks) would violate the trust of every person who voted for him. Ditto for every Democrat in Congress.
Worthy or not, Republicans cast themselves as the party of "tax breaks." And if that is your single, shortsighted priority for our government, you should vote Republican. But in November, America did not. So last month, when Obama was asked why there weren't more Republican ideas in his stimulus plan and he replied "I won," his response was not only delightfully honest but informative.
Bipartisanship means listening to, understanding and respecting the opposition. Obama is doing that. Sometimes it means making compromises too, but not on everything. In a democratic republic, citizens vote for the people they think will choose what is best for their country. Because Republican policies and leadership failed us so spectacularly during the last eight years, we voted them out of power. We already tried pure tax breaks-they didn't work. And there's a reason Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." So maybe this time our government should actually govern?
Last week, all House Republicans voted against the stimulus bill (which still passed easily). But they are quite proud of their completely ineffective yet unanimous opposition. They even view it as a victory because Obama spent time meeting with them. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., explained, "If he comes and meets with us like that and it doesn't have an impact, it begins to hurt his credibility [with representatives]." OK, or another interpretation could be that Republicans are equally unwilling to compromise on their core beliefs and voted with their party. What's that called again? Oh yeah, "partisan." Bipartisanship is a two-way street, not the unilateral acquiescence of the ruling majority.
While Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposes a $3.1 trillion tax break "stimulus" alternative, his fellow Republicans oppose the current $820 billion plan as wastefully large. Highlighting minor expenditures (like the efficiency measures I last wrote about), they've framed the bill as a giant helping of congressional pork. But this label doesn't quite fit.
Legislative "pork" is funding for projects that benefit only a small constituency, frequently within a single congressperson's district. Conversely, most of the "controversial" stimulus expenditures fund broad objectives, such as an anti-smoking campaign. These seem more like "riders," unrelated provisions attached to a larger, important bill that is likely to pass. But this comparison doesn't work either, because the expenditures themselves are the bill. That would make the stimulus package some kind of conglomeration of self-propelling riders, but that's unwieldy.
Given the difficulty of classifying this project and our penchant for labeling legislation as meat, I propose that this bill is "spam": Nobody really knows quite what it is, it's clearly many things mashed together, and whatever it is, it's going to be around for a while. It's not your first choice, but you'd certainly eat it if you were starving.
This stimulus spam is not perfect, but our economy is famished. Barring a government-wide "kumbaya" moment, continued debate will accomplish little. I concede that some of the proposed expenditures would not provide short-term economic stimulus and could be removed, but the Democratic agenda has long been stifled and a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It's also worth mentioning that many of the "jobless" investments, like computerizing medical records, would indeed save money in the long run.
Regardless, the performance of our economy during this administration will be attributed to, or blamed on, Democrats; if we're shouldering all the risk, we might as well do this our way. Recent claims of partisanship are the crutch of a Republican party that has nothing new to offer.
Last week, Sen. John McCain distributed an anti-stimulus petition. He wrote, "With so much at stake, the last thing we need is partisanship driving our attempts to turn the economy around." But is partisanship really worse than a prolonged, deeper recession? I don't think so.
Jamie Friedland is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Tuesday.