The Paradox That Fuels Our Divided Politics

Each party would be happy to destroy the other, but neither understands the best way to accomplish that goal.

By
154

American politics is caught in a perverse paradox. The bases of both parties would like nothing more than to destroy the other party. But it is precisely this animus that prevents them from accomplishing their goal. That’s because the best strategy for partisans to wreak havoc in the other party is to pursue bipartisanship when they’re in power.

When Barack Obama came into office with majorities in Congress, he opted to push his agenda on a party-line basis, starting with the 2009 stimulus package that passed the Senate with only three Republican votes and the 2010 Affordable Care Act that got no Republican support in the Senate.

Obama’s unilateral approach allowed Republicans to stay unified in opposition and ultimately to take back the House in 2010, leaving Obama to spend the rest of his presidency governing with his “pen and phone” without more major legislation.

The Trump presidency offers a similar lesson. If Trump had opened with an infrastructure plan—as some of his advisers initially wanted—he could have split the Democrats, won over some moderates in that party and made it more difficult for the Democrats to sell their “resistance” messaging for Trump’s entire term.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
154
By
Comments (154)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Robert Hoffman

    Many of these responses take the position that the majority is always right and therefore principled opposition is just obstruction and should be ignored or compromised. Based on these positions slavery would still be present in the United States today because the abolitionists of the 1820’s through 1850’s should have just accepted that slavery was a permanent part of society because the majority accepted slavery as acceptable. This was true around the world. The majority of Germans in 1939 supported the positions of Hitler. Principled opposition is always correct and has an obligation to try change the thoughts of society not compromise its position because the majority disagrees.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    BrettH

    I’m a fan of your work and I think you’re correct with the lack of genuine interest in working with the opposition from the Biden administration and most of your arguments in this piece. But, as others rightly point out, McConnell was hell bent on flat out obstructionism instead of any attempt at bipartisanship during the Obama years. My suspicion is that he wanted to keep the base of the party happy too. It is a vicious cycle, I have no objection to that glaring reality.

    Collapse
  3. M M (Lee)

    The question is will the GOP wait until losing Texas before changing their strategy. The losses of Georgia and Arizona predictably correlated with the percentage non-Hispanic whites in those states dropping below 50%. (In 1980 Georgia was 72% non-Hispanic white). It was a bad time for Republicans to run a candidate whose entire campaign was a comedy tour with minority groups as the butt of the jokes (e.g. Mexicans as rapists, etc).

    Since 2000 Texas has dropped from 52% non-Hispanic white to 41%. During that period, the GOP won by an average of 22 points (2000, 2004), then 14 points (2008, 2012), and then 7 points (2016, 2020). The GOP advantage has dropped by some 15 points during the period in which non-Hispanic whites dropped by 11 points. Every day the GOP's advantage drops further.

    The solution is simple. The GOP should go full Reagan-Thatcher, openly asserting its principles from the point of view of minority groups whom the GOP hopes to win over.

    Hispanics want jobs and a predictable immigration policy that is consistent with employment market needs (so that, when they come to fill open U.S. jobs, they can do so legally and efficiently). And clearly in Florida they don't want socialism and in south Texas they don't want dangerous border problems. Employment market-based immigration, where the number of immigrants matches the number of job openings (in broad terms), would cut out the chaos.

    Asians would like to use their education by working here in the U.S., which again requires transparent immigration rules that match employment market demands. And presumably Asians would like to be included politically; notice the big GOP victories in California this year with Asian, as well as Hispanic, candidates.

    LGBT individuals need only to be included, and deemed worthy of the same rights as everyone else. Crime can be addressed from the point of view of bringing safety to African-Americans, as well as everyone else. And tax cuts will deliver job offers, promotions and salary increases for all.

    This is not complicated. It's only a matter of whether or not the GOP must lose before deciding they actually want to win.

    Collapse
  4. Tim

    It's quite the enigma and paradox. Stipulate for the moment that either party in the minority is only motivated to obstruct and find a way back to power.

    Here we are with an administration that has the needed control (executive and both houses) and path (Byrd reconciliation) to consider popular and well needed relief for the pandemic and investment in our infrastructure. They are doing good things and making a mess of it at the same time. The excess in these efforts could be trimmed and focused by a good faith bipartisan effort.

    Instead we get effort to sabotage by GOP and "get it while its hot" behavior by the Democrats. Each party would be happy to destroy each other but that is not what is best for the country. The GOP may well kill itself, and it may deserve that, but there would be no natural tension of a bipartisan process to get to better legislative outcomes.

    What we have now, in no way fosters a bipartisan process. It fosters sabotage and "get it while its hot". All this argument about the ACA process supports the dilemma. The Obama administration tried bipartisanship and only got sabotage and decided to just move on while it had 60 votes in the Senate. Trump didn't even try to reach across the aisle and rammed the GOP tax plan through on Byrd reconciliation. Biden is sort of trying to reach across the aisle but not very hard, and using Byrd reconciliation.

    Please spare the "no legislation is good legislation" arguments. We aren't likely to see 60 in the majority Senate any time soon. With or without the filibuster, it will be full on obstruct and claw for minority to get back in power; instead of good government and bipartisan effort. I don't see a way out of our divided politics and it is a sad state of affairs. It wasn't perfect but Reagan, Tip O'Neil, Robert Byrd, and Howard Baker sure gave bipartisanship a good try.

    Collapse
  5. Kurt Von Fuchs

    Since the vast majority of Americans do not spend that much time paying attention to politics I understand why politicians on both the right and the left listen to the base that the ones making all the noise. However, that leaves 70% of Americans. One of Reagan's greatest strengths was the understanding that those 70% of what matters. Perhaps if politicians on both the right and left spent a little less time worrying about the 15% and more time worrying about the majority more people might actually engage

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    What I don't understand is that ARP was started before Biden became President, so why didn't Republicans jump on the band wagon? They knew it would pass, and if they suggested moderate changes Biden would've probably agreed in order to get Republican support for bi-partisan bill. But instead they turned their back on it out of spite. My grandmother would have said " they would cut their noses off to spite face.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Will Bates

    I'm sorry Jonah but this article is a gross mischaracterization and circular logic.

    Mitch McConnell did not earn his nicknames by being some bastion of bipartisanship. His modus operandi is opposition. You are using Mitch McConnell's opposition as proof that Biden is not being bipartisan, but McConnell's opposition is the whole point. He'd oppose anything that isn't written by his own hand, and even then, he'd oppose it until a republican President were elected to get credit for it.

    I'll grant you that Biden's actions so far haven't even attempted bipartisanship, but let's not forget that 6 months ago, the minority party tried to overthrow the government. I'm gonna give Biden a pass for his lack of a give-a-crap what the GOP thinks, at least until the Republican party rights their own ship. I'll critique the legislation itself (which has been a pile of steaming crap), but he shouldn't give two craps what the republicans want.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Bi-partisan ship is not dead1 Just look at the Southern border. Everyone agrees on the issue: "it's the other guy's fault"!...

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    Let's get real. Somewhere in the 90's Republican politics began to become a zero-sum game. By the time Obama was elected that transformation was complete. Bi-partisanship became a dead letter. If bi-partisan legislation passed it meant the President won and Republicans lost. So denying Republican votes was a nifty way of scuttling any promise of bi-partisanship; thwarting any Democratic Party policy inititiatives and proving government doesn't work... for a Party whose clarion call is that government doesn't work. Merrick Garland was the cynical denoument to the entire strategy.

    Collapse
  10. Jaybrown

    Excellent take, Jonah. It is truly disturbing that nobody seems to see the value of bipartisanship anymore.

    Collapse
Load More