I don’t know if you watched any coverage of today’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit but it was remarkable. Obama made some opening statements and then the invitees broke up into working groups. There were groups for Social Security, Healthcare, Tax Reform, Budget Process, and Procurement. But that wasn’t the fascinating part. When the groups were done, they reassembled as a larger group and Obama addressed them again. And when he was done making his statement, he began calling on the audience, starting with Senator John McCain. He called on Democrats and Republicans and organizational leaders, and he asked them for feedback on what they had learned and discussed in their groups.
If you didn’t actually see it, it’s hard to express to you the effect this had. It was the equivalent of forcing cousins that don’t really like each other to play together while the grown-ups enjoy their Thanksgiving. Instantaneously, the whole oppositional game the Republicans have been playing was rendered silly, childish, and moot. Any idea that Obama is insincere about bipartisanship seemed churlish, and any idea that his bipartisanship is a fool’s errand seemed shortsighted.
One particularly enlightening exchange occurred when a Republican congressman (the White House transcript doesn’t identify him) stood up and implored the president to do more for bipartisanship than just hold a summit.
Update [2009-2-24 0:28:17 by BooMan]: The congressman was Joe Barton of Texas’ Sixth District.
Q Mr. President, thank you for having us here at the White House. I’m going to take a little bit different approach. Senator Baucus mentioned it and Chairman Rangel mentioned it –the need for bipartisanship, and I think the House Republicans have shown that when we’re not included in the decision-making, we’re disinclined to sign off on the solution.
And it’s very easy in the House — it’s set up to get things done quickly if the majority is united — to forget about the minority. But if you really want consensus, I would encourage you to encourage the Speaker to have a true open process. This is a good first step, but if this is all we do, it’s a sterile step.
On the other hand, if you really follow up and include everybody in the process, you’re more than likely to get a solution that everybody signs off on. And I have said or stood behind every President since Reagan in this room at bill signing ceremonies that were the result of consensus. So I commend you for doing this.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you’re making an important point. And, you know, my response, first of all is, I’m not in Congress so I don’t want to interject myself too much into congressional politics. But I do want to make this point, and I think it’s important — on the one hand, the majority has to be inclusive. On the other hand, the minority has to be constructive.
And so to the extent that on many of these issues we are able to break out of sort of the rigid day-to-day politics and think long term, then what you should see, I think, is the majority saying, what are your ideas; the minority has got to then come up with those ideas and not just want to blow the thing up. And I think that on some of these issues, we’re going to have some very real differences and, you know, presumably the majority will prevail unless the minority can block it. But you’re just going to have different philosophical approaches to some of these problems.
But on the issue that was just raised here on procurement, on the issues — some of the issues surrounding health care, the way it cuts isn’t even going to be Democratic/Republican. It’s going to be — you know, there may be regional differences, there may be a whole host of other differences. And if that’s — if we can stay focused on solving problems, then I will do what I can, through my good offices, to encourage the kind of cooperation you’re encouraging.
Plain and simple. Barack Obama isn’t the devil and he isn’t 100% wrong about everything and he isn’t looking to railroad Republicans or to dismiss anything individual members might have to contribute. And, thus, the whole Republican playbook is filled with plays that won’t gain a first down, let along a touchdown.
And, honestly, we all have to learn from this just as much as the Republicans do. We’re all so jaded and scarred from the last thirty years of politics that we don’t know any other way to operate. We are suspicious of the very concept of a Fiscal Responsibility Summit that puts entitlement reform on the table. We don’t want to work with Republicans and we consider use of any of their ideas to be something between foolishness and cowardice. It’s a reflection of decades of ever-increasing political polarization. But, I’m telling you, Obama is going to keep putting us in the sandbox together until we start changing our behavior. Even if turns out that we can’t work together, the whole spectacle is unlike anything I’ve seen in my life, and it’s pure political gold.
I like lemonade.
I like chocolate milk.
Together? Not so much.
The minority has some good ideas, and inasmuch as they fit within the paradigm that the majority sets then they should be coopted, but they should amount to little more than ornaments on the tree – the majority dictates what kind of tree and the design pattern.
A little peppermint schnapps for my hot chocolate? Sure, but not too much.
.
Joe Barton asks Obama to make House Democrats play nice …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
thanks.
This process is difficult for Republicans because they don’t believe in effective government. They don’t even think such a thing is possible. So they are kind of stuck– marginalizing themselves by whining on cable news isn’t helping their political stock rise, and meeting Obama halfway will alienate their base. They are screwed.
That’s the beauty of it, isn’t it? And watching Norah O’Donnell just deride the Republicans over their plan to go back to the Gingrich playbook of the 90s yesterday (’20 year old ideas are all the GOP has left?”) shows how well this works.
Best line of the closing Q&A session was when Obama looked at Eric Cantor and joked:
A Reaganesque moment–diffusing tension with humor.
outside of playing the media, marching in lockstep, and party unity, what exactly do we have to learn from the republicans?
do tell.
brendan, I am kind of a Star Trek Jew, by which I mean not that I am Jewish but that I loved the original but lost interest in the sequels. So, this analogy might not be perfect because I am no expert in Borgology.
If you look at the Republican Caucus as a Borg with individual members that appear to be independent but which, in reality, answer only to the queen bee/master controller, then there is nothing we can learn from them and we can only be deceived by them.
But if you take those individuals and decouple them from the Borg, even for a few hours, and you do some reprogramming on them, you will find out that they are real human beings, with real families with real sick grandmothers and nephews will special needs and pregnant daughters, and all the rest. And you will, more importantly, learn that they have districts and constituents other than Rush Limbaugh and the goons that show up at Sarah Palin rallies.
And then you’ll discover that they just might understand why some proposed piece of legislation is going to have some needlessly deleterious effect on some of their constituents. This is just an example.
The Republicans, as a party and as an ideology don’t have any ideas we want or need to incorporate. But their members do. And the key is to break them free from their control from the Borg.
“And you will, more importantly, learn that they have districts and constituents other than Rush Limbaugh and the goons that show up at Sarah Palin rallies.”
That may have been true 10 years ago, but I think the last 8 years have driven any relatively normal people away from the Republican party. The constituents they are left with are the racists and anti-abortion church crowd. Did you see any normal people in that Pelosi documentary that’s running on HBO?
I rest my case, and await your rebuttal. š
Well, there are two sides to what I am saying.
On the one hand, in recognition of your point, I totally recognize the analogy of The Borg.
So, in our analogy, the nativists and abortion freaks that make up a Sarah Palin rally are not original Republicans but a species that has been assimilated and now provides the majority of genetic material to the GOP.
If you are still with me after all this geekatude, the next point is that individual members of The Borg can be partially rehabilitated through decoupling in combination with reprogramming.
What we watched yesterday at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit was an example of this. You take them out of their natural environment, you provide them some of their sustenance (respect, deference, interest, lunch), you force them to work with non-Borg people to solve non-Borg problems. And you send them back to the Borg when you are done.
It’s not that you are going to deprogram them with one summit. And the object isn’t to kill off The Borg, which is impossible. It is merely to disrupt The Borg, cause mutinies, gain intelligence, and even (once in a while) a good idea.
Because, in the end, congresspeople, no matter what party they represent, do share certain characteristics. Chief among them is a constituency. And then there are the things that unite all human beings, like sickness and death.
But, never forget, this is as much for show as it is for good ideas or votes. It’s political gold.
while I appreciate the trek references, and I understand where you’re going with this, you didn’t actually answer the question “what exactly do we have to learn from the republicans?”
ou will find out that they are real human beings, with real families with real sick grandmothers and nephews will special needs and pregnant daughters, and all the rest.
I already know this. I also know that the only time a republican exhibits any kind of compassion on any issue is when the issue affects them immediately and personally. Like specter and health, because he personally has cancer. or walter jones and iraq, who got tired of personal visits from grieving war widows and parents. or george will and services for the retarded, because his kid has down syndrome.
and yes they have districts and constituents that aren’t rush limabugh: how’d that work out with bobby jindal or judd gregg or that asshole sanford or the majority of house goopers that voted no on the stimulus plan?
There is nothing to learn from the republicans other than “how not to act.”
okay. Let’s go with what you’re saying because I agree with it about 99%.
The fact is that there are somewhere over 200 Republican members of the House and Senate and that you will find some of them are interested in special education, some in ending foreign adventures, some in funding cancer research, some in funding stem-cell research, etc.
So, you identify those commonalities and exploit them.
The example I used, though, was when a representative of a specific district has some distinctive, localized knowledge. Perhaps they understand the issue of lack of broadband access, or the devastating effects some piece of legislation will have on certain local economies.
It’s non-partisan knowledge. And it can used to make better laws.
I realized I read your question wrong.
You stated “we all have to learn from this just as much as the Republicans do”, and i read this as the “we have stuff we can learn from the GOP.”
that’s the problem with not enough coffee in the morning.
So as long as we’re talking about playing nice with the gop as a strategy to split and weaken them further, i agree. However, if the president really means that “the majority has to be inclusive. On the other hand, the minority has to be constructive”, I disagree 100%.
the majority does not HAVE to be inclusive. they can be if they want to be, but there is no requirement that they be this way. I would prefer that, for the time being, they NOT be inclusive, on many topics. being “inclusive” watered down an already weak stimulus bill, and still didn’t get any GOP votes (yeah, yeah 3 in the senate, bug whoop).
Furthermore, it’s the minority’s JOB to be obstructive, and i wish the democrats had done more of this when they were in the minority. There’s a rteason it’s called the “loyal OPPOSITION.”
I’ve lived through 8 years of republican majority rule, and since the 1990s with solid gop majorities in the senate and the house. I’m not particularly interested in including their stupid, wasteful, and obsolete ideas.
Two things:
First, read Obama’s blockquote again. What is he really saying? Is it at all different from what you’re saying? I would say, only in tone and temperament. Substantively, he’s flat-out saying that there are philosophical differences between the parties and that the majority’s philosophy is going to prevail unless the minority can block it.
At the same time, look at what I am saying in the last paragraph. I am saying that you and I are jaded by years of severe political polarization and what we see as Republican bad faith (including so far in this Congress). We see Obama reaching out and holding a party for fiscal responsibility and we get concerned that he’s getting ready to sell us out or gut our Social Security. But, we’re suffering from the scars of combat every bit as much as the Republicans. Obama is asking us to trust his approach, but it isn’t easy to take his approach as sincere or wise or constructive because we have no faith in Republicans.
But these two concepts together and keep them tightly entwined, and you’ll get what I’m trying to communicate.
“I am saying that you and I are jaded by years of severe political polarization and what we see as Republican bad faith”
so what you’re saying is this is all a matter of perception on my/our part? What we “see” as “republican bad faith” is actually something else?
well, then what is this something else that i am obviously missing.
What I’m saying is that we have no faith that anything of value can come from ‘working with Republicans’. That’s based on actual experience, not mere perceptions. It’s not a dumb theory, but hard-won wisdom.
But, things do change.
OK, I think i gotcha.
but now I’m confused: on several issues in the recent past, democrats and republicans have worked on good legislation together, such as obama and lugar’s nonproliferation work. And as long as bipartisan isn’t just a euphemism for “do as the gop says” I’m ok with workign together (the congress and senate are supposed to be where deals are made).
but i honestly don’t think the gop will go along with that. did you see these comments from Steele, suggesting “retribution” against republicans like specter and nsowe for voting in favor of the stimulus?
not sure how that’ll play out.
steele’s a fucking idiot. since snowe isn’t up for re-election until 2012, and collins was just re-elected, l’ sure they’re shaking in the prada’s.
l hope he keeps it up. maybe the d‘s can finally get snow to change parties, get franken seated, then tell the RAT’s to go bugger themselves.