It’s ironic that Chris Bowers decided to post about the advantages of partisanship this morning because I have been thinking more and more about the advantages of post-partisanship. It’s not that I really disagree with most of what Bowers (or Yglesias) has to say about the issue, but I am looking to the immediate future and I think their analysis is based on the recent past.
Yglesias uses the example of the Civil Rights struggle to make his case for the merits of political polarization. It’s important to consider this as a rebuttal not to post-partisanship but to the mushy middle ground politics so often advocated by the likes of Joe Klein and David Broder.
Under conditions where there’s very little polarization, like the congressional politics of civil rights in the 1950s, you get chaos. Perhaps a certain Democratic incumbent is slightly better on civil rights than his Republican challenger. But the Republican ranking member on some key committee may well be better on civil rights than is the Democratic incumbent. Thus it’s possible that backing the incumbent is good for civil rights unless beating the incumbent would cause the balance of power to shift and bring the Republican ranking member into the majority. What’s a voter to do? Who knows?
The battle over civil rights was not really comparable to any of the pressing challenges we face today. Either blacks were going to be afforded equal rights or they were not, and there weren’t any mushy middle ground compromises available. Because the two sides of the argument were much more regional than partisan, the polarization was not wholly partisan in nature. The fact that Republicans and Democrats could make common cause against Jim Crow was a strength, perhaps a necessary strength, and not a defect. If I were to make a contemporary analogy, the upcoming battle to confront global warming and the energy crisis is going to pit energy consuming states against energy supplying states, and we can expect politicians from West Virginia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska to come together to fight positive change, regardless of their party affiliation. And I think this shows up a weakness in Yglesias’ argument.
Weak parties make the life of a Washington power broker more interesting. Basically, there’s more power brokering to do. There are more horses to trade. There’s more dealing to wheel. Politics becomes a fascinating game of three dimensional chess. Polarization is boring. Two parties lay out there programs, people vote, and depending on the election outcomes and the veto points in the system, legislation results. But polarization is simpler for voters. It connects actions to results. And it brings about higher levels of participation as a result.
Polarization may be boring (in the good sense), but in the effort to pass meaningful energy and environmental legislation it is vastly preferable to deal in three-dimensional chess than it is to have two parties take up rigid positions and fight to the death. Yglesias still has a point. Global warming denier Jim Inhofe is the ranking member on the Environmental & Public Works committee. If he were to again become chairman, he could muck up the works on any legislation coming out of that committee. So, voting for a environmentally solid Republican for senate could have unintended consequences if it led to a change in party control.
However, it is much easier to pass legislation that has bipartisan support because a minority party always has more discipline than any ad-hoc coalition of legislators. A minority party that is unified against a piece of legislation can give and withhold financial support, or grant or strip committee assignments. There are a host of ways that a party can maintain discipline that are unavailable to a regional non-partisan coalition.
Overall, I think Congress is more effective and functional when it consistently brings together ad hoc coalitions to create legislation than when the two parties line up in lockstep.
Looking forward to the next Congress, it looks quite likely that the Democrats will significantly increase their majorities in both houses, and they have to be favored to regain the White House. If that comes to pass, we will be facing a political climate that we haven’t seen since Jimmy Carter was president. The Republicans will have to reinvent themselves to rebuild their numbers and I expect that will become much less ideologically rigid. Just as the Democrats are likely to pick up more socially conservative seats in places like Mississippi and Louisiana, the Republicans will look to elect environmentally and socially moderate candidates in the north and on the coasts. They may elect more Bob Barr/Ron Paul like candidates that can simultaneously support both the NRA and the ACLU.
This will open up the possibility of the ad hoc coalitions that were the norm until, roughly, the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. And I truly believe that is a good thing. First of all, this development will be taking place in the context of a left-leaning ruling majority. But, secondly, it is just easier to get things done in Congress when the majorities transcend party identification.
This is quite distinct from the type of politics envisioned by David Broder. This isn’t a Unity08 or Michael Bloomberg mushy middle. It’s one party rule, where the solutions come from the left in a general sense, but where the left is no longer synonymous with the Democratic Party and the right is no longer synonymous with the Republican Party.
In this type of environment, policy is not easily reduced to a Crossfire style of partisan bickering. Yes, it involves some level of chaos and its diminishes the brand of the major parties. But it is a whole lot healthier to have citizens and politicians banding together over issues than over brute party loyalty.
It only seems like we have to be superpartisan to succeed because we have been living in a right-leaning political environment where the Republicans have refused to compromise or act in good faith. But, once consigned to the minority, they will have no choice to get beyond mere obstructionism. We have to try to envision a post-partisan world. That will make fighting for it all the more satisfying.
Also available in mauve, or whatever color that is.
In times where Assimilation of new ideas into the current model is best, perhaps mushy centrism is best. In times where Accommodation of new ideas through altering the current model is needed, polarized partisanship is perhaps more useful.
Like almost all questions posed in a this or that structure, the answer is ‘both, sometimes.’
Check out links for how new, difficult information is integrated into paradigms in a learning system, from a Cognitive Psychological perspective, cuz it applies well to policy:
Google for Equillibration, etc.
Piaget is once again ‘the man.’
I just made a similar argument over at Dailykos. It was more on the lines of corporations closing profitable plants to make even more money in another country who has a lower tax rate AND poor environmental and worker standards.
I wholeheartedly agree about the value of ad hoc coalitions, but the era you envision is possible only with the destruction of the two-party system. The Dems have proved only marginally more useful than the competition, and, except in times of clear national crisis like the Depression, simply grow more corrupt and cowardly as their power increases. What makes you think Dem proposals will suddenly come from the left?
As far as what partisanship can do, Bob Barr is the shining example.
Are you making a semantic argument about the meaning of ‘left’?
If we have a Democratic president (say, Obama) and 60 or near 60 senators, and 250-270 members of the House, then naturally the legislation is going to be originating from the left, and depending on the issue, will require little to no input from the right.
In other words, it is no longer a matter of pushing mushy solutions that can appeal to the Gang of 14, but of one-party solutions. However, over time we’ll see a return to regional splits. As I noted, on energy policy, Mark Begich and Rick Noriega are likely to back the business interests in their state as strongly as Ted Stevens and John Cornyn. But it’s also likely that any new Republicans that emerge in blue non-energy states are going to be more environmentally friendly than the current crop of lockstep Republicans.
That’s the kind of transformation I’m talking about.
The invisible hand at work!
is that sincere or dismissive?
It was… ambiguous!
But don’t you see the parallel with the your comment one or two levels up?
I case you hadn’t noticed, I tend not to THINK so much as issue cognitive excretions.
But as a matter of policy, I could NEVER dismiss the Booman.
I suppose the meaning of “left” is part of my perspective. I don’t think the likes of Reid and Feinstein, for example, vote right-of-center on so many issues comes from their fear of the GOP. It comes from seeking to please, or at least not alienate, their money machines. How would that change if the Dems had a bigger majority? What if, for instance, Clinton is the president? Would you call the ideology of Bill’s administration a leftist agenda? Would it have been much different if Congress had been more Dem? I don’t think so.
I certainly believe that the more control the Dems get, the better at this point, but the real issue goes to the heart of the system itself, and the power of the two parties. It seems naive in the extreme to imagine that a more powerful Dem party is likely to mess with the system that gave them so much power.
I oftentimes feel you are my political twin, Booman. I couldn’t agree more.
If I had the time and a little starter money, I’d really like to put together a Web site called something like “Common Ground” that would be a place for conscientious people of all political persuasions to try to forge coalitions to protect us all, checking their partisan assumptions (and nastiness) at the door.
I believe there are good and bad people in every party (I’m very upset with how Steny Hoyer, a leading Dem, is supporting electronic voting!), and that these are the people who need to be working together across party lines to get things done.
Five million people in this country suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease. During the next administration, the number will skyrocket due to the aging baby boomer population.
We need to ask our candidates what they’re going to do about it before it bankrupts Medicare and Medicaid. PA voters must ask that question now.
http://www.alz.org/election08