It seems as though discussions of "partisanship" and "bipartisanship" are all the rage these days. From national political news programs to our own Bowdoin Orient, pundits of all stripes have entered the debate. Mired in all of this discussion, however, we may be losing track of the meaning of bipartisanship. In the words of Oscar Wilde: "Don't use big words; they mean so little." The media has been discussing bipartisanship constantly, but how often do we stop to think about its meaning? Considering the frequency of its use, probably not enough.
Reflexively, one might define bipartisanship as a condition where both parties support and/or author a given piece of legislation. This seems straightforward enough, until one considers the consequences of this logic. The electorate didn't vote for equal power-sharing. In 2006, voters awarded the Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 2008, voters expanded these majorities and put a Democrat in the White House. If the public is so desperate for bipartisanship, why does it keep putting Democrats in power?
Bipartisanship is a nice word for politicians to use, because it conjures in the public mind a notion of civility and respect. More civility and respect between individuals of different political views is desirable. A definition of bipartisanship as a condition where two parties can get along and have honest and open discussions about policy would suit America well. However, civility and respect do not demand equality of legislative power. Voters elected a set of leaders who subscribe to particular values as to how to run a country. These leaders shouldn't be so quick to compromise on these principles in the name of bipartisanship. That wasn't what they were elected to do.
Making bipartisanship an end—not a means—can be a dangerous thing. Consider the stimulus package that was signed into law on Tuesday: while the bill is a step in the right direction, it is not all it could, or should, have been. A select few Senators (Maine's own Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson) removed important elements of the bill, such as education funding, allegedly to make the bill less expensive.
Even neglecting the fact that the point of a stimulus bill is to inject money into the economy, the cuts weren't fiscally sensible. If Senators wanted to make the bill cheaper without cutting provisions with actual stimulus potential, they could have eliminated the alternative minimum tax shelter. This is essentially a tax break for the wealthy, and whatever its merits, it isn't especially stimulating to the economy. Instead, politicians cut measures that wouldn't provoke outrage. As a result, the bill will do less to stimulate the economy, all for a desire to be bipartisan.
It is a basic principle of negotiation that one begins by arguing for one's ideal position, and negotiates down as necessary. Currently, the Democrats are in a position of great legislative power, but weaken themselves to appease a media obsessed with a flawed notion of bipartisanship. This will yield weaker legislation at a time when we cannot afford it. Democrats need to realize what they were elected to do, and then advocate strongly for their principles. Of course, given the 60-vote threshold that the GOP uses on virtually all major legislation, some compromise will be necessary. Nonetheless, Democrats should not back off their principles so easily in the name of bipartisanship.
Even when we disagree on principle, there is no reason to be uncivil. Though they are in the majority, Democrats should set an example by being open with their Republican colleagues and making good faith, principled arguments for their positions. Republicans should follow suit.
That said, sometimes the parties have vehement philosophical differences, and nothing is accomplished by splitting the difference, particularly when the electorate has indicated a strong preference for the Democratic platform two election cycles in a row. Even Michael Steele, the newly elected chair of the Republican National Committee, recently stated that after the fiascos of the past eight years, the public has no reason to trust his party. While the GOP deserves respect and civility, it has to earn its way back to having an equal say in legislative matters, and a desire for bipartisanship shouldn't cause leaders to ignore popular mandate.
Living in a free country means that we are allowed to disagree. Recently, we have become afraid of this disagreement, instead choosing to seek an ideal that doesn't exist. This isn't a winning formula for public policy in America. Instead, it only causes us to put off debate and avoid making hard decisions. Civility and respect are important, but it is time that we stop subordinating the public good to a flawed notion of bipartisanship.
Eamonn Hart is a member of the Class of 2009.