WATBs Are…Whining

One aspect of the bipartisanship fetishization that I haven’t really fleshed out yet is the extent to which Republicans will always pitch a fit if Democrats aren’t sufficiently accommodating to Republican legislative goals. Over at his new home, The Plum Line, Greg Sargent writes about Rep. Eric Cantor’s pearl-clutching complaints against Democratic interest groups’ ads attack Republicans. Sargent quotes Cantor saying:

“President Obama should immediately disavow plans by some political groups who announced they will run attack ads against Republicans,” Cantor says. “Let us be clear: attack ads will not create jobs or help struggling families but will only serve to undermine our nation’s desire for bipartisanship. Instead of thinking about winning at any cost, we should all be thinking about creating the jobs Americans need.”

You know, I’m not even sure that Cantor is right when he says “attack ads will not create jobs” — as they do in fact provide jobs to actors, editors, media buyers, writers, etc. That’s really neither here nor there, though.

Cantor is creating a red herring. The ads aren’t the problem, as they didn’t stop Republicans from voting for the stimulus, which while smaller than needed is still expected to create 2-3 million jobs. Republicans are the problem , through their  obstructionism, opposition for the sake of opposition, and whining to the media that Obama is using his mandate to pass things the American public gave him mandate to pass.

I don’t doubt that there are many Americans that genuinely want to see bipartisanship (in this context used by its definition, not as Cantor or Mark Halperin define it). But more than abstract ideas about comity, Americans want government that works. Not all ideas, policies, and programs are created equally. Some are right, some are wrong, some are good, some are bad.

I don’t recall a single point in the stimulus debate where Obama and his administration made the substantive items a question of winning or losing on them. There was no “win” orientation when they pulled funding for birth control. There was no care of “winning at any cost” when they pulled bankruptcy reform from the stimulus.

Cantor is simply making things up.  But the effect of Cantor’s lies is to add inertia to their “Obama wasn’t bipartisan enough” meme. Expect this to continue to gain traction as the whine reaches an increasingly high pitch.

Update:

Here’s the ad in question. Good lord Cantor is whining. This is about as soft an attack ad I’ve ever seen. Hell, it’s not even an attack!

Disclosure: I’m proud to work for the Service Employees International Union. This post was neither approved by nor with the knowledge of SEIU. It represents my views alone.

Bipartisanship, Writ Halperin

Steve Benen’s take down of Mark Halperin’s logical twister regarding the stimulus and bipartisanship is a must-read example of how the fetishization of bipartisanship is illogical and leads to anti-Democratic narratives. It’s absurd to argue that it was Obama’s responsibility to please the right wing of the House GOP caucus by throwing Democratic ideas — ideas Obama campaigned on — out the window in order to win Republican votes. But that’s what the pleas for bipartisanship are. Moreover, it’s clear that Halperin and the Conventional Wisdom creating crowd around him care more about the makeup of a vote than the outcome of a vote. A compromise bill was passed with a strong majority yesterday; it’s incidental that no Republicans voted for it, as it did in fact contain concessions that they had asked for. Halperin’s analysis makes no sense. Democrats listening to Halperin’s analysis would make even less sense, but I have no doubt that it will be an area of deep concern for people on the Hill and anyone in the Whitehouse who thinks the opinions of a hack like Halperin or the votes of regressives in the House caucus should have any bearing on the Obama administration’s stewardship of this country.

New Crackdown in Tibet

The Washington Post reports that Tibet is still not free and Tibetans still live under the crushing weight of China’s ongoing military occupation:

Chinese authorities carrying out a “strike hard” campaign in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa have raided thousands of homes and businesses, run checks on 5,766 suspects and detained at least 81 people, including two for having reactionary music on their cellphones, according to official reports and news accounts.

The Lhasa Evening News adds that two of the people detained “had reactionary opinions.” Not only is some music banned in Tibet, some opinions are illegal.

It’s pretty hard to overstate how brutal China’s rule in Tibet is. The ubiquitous police and military presence isn’t merely aimed at maintaining physical control of the population. Rather it is a tool to break the spirit of Tibetans, to silence dissent and even thoughts and songs that scare the ruling Chinese government.

The continued silence by the global community is truly disheartening. I hope the Obama administration and the State Department under Hillary Clinton seriously evaluate how the US can shift our policy towards China regarding Tibet. I think there are a few substantive steps that could be made and I would hope to see including:

  • At least double the size of the State Department staff dedicated to Tibet;
  • Have President Obama host the Dalai Lama on a state visit, including a meeting in the Oval Office;
  • Include demands for the release of all Tibetan political prisoners on Secretary of State Clinton’s first visit to China or the first visit by a Chinese head of state to the US, whichever comes first;
  • Demand immediate information about the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama;
  •  Set strict policies for the conditions in which American companies – including mining, internet technology, security/surveillance, tourism, and rail – can do business with China inside of Tibet; and
  • if and when the Tibetan Government in Exile shifts their demands from autonomy to independence, as is a distinct possibility in the next four years, have President Obama offer to host the first round of meaningful, substantive negotiations on the path towards Tibetan independence.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but each step would facilitate a march towards freedom for Tibet. China must pay a price for their ongoing occupation of Tibet – be it socially, economically, or politically. These steps make it harder for China to continue their illegal occupation and thus bring Tibetans closer to their birthright.

Responding to Partisanship

This is simply remarkable, but entirely unsurprising. Republicans are likely not going to vote at all for the stimulus in the House, according to Rep. Castle.

Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., said there could be as many as 10 to 15 Republicans supporting the package, but added, “If I had to bet, I would bet zero.

It’s remarkable that the Republicans are being candid and equally remarkable that Democrats in DC did not expect this outcome.

Tim F. of Balloon Juice is spot on when he writes:

If Republicans plan to deliver exactly zero votes for Obama’s stimulus bill, then why does the bill still have compromises in it? Screw them. Put the family planning stuff back in, take the tax cuts out. If we know for sure that passing a crappy bill still won’t win any votes then just pass a better bill. They won’t scream any louder. The political cost won’t be any greater. Also, and pay attention because this is the important part, a better bill is more likely to succeed.

That any other course of action than what Tim suggests would be possible at this point from the Democratic side is only testament to our party’s tactical ineffectiveness. What goes unsaid from Tim’s post is this – step back while I put on my bipartisan fetishist hat: A hard step to the left in response to Republican obstinance could force moderate Republicans back into the realm of voting for the bill. That is, if it really is more important for the administration and Democrats on the Hill to pass a bill that has bipartisan support than having a bill that works, then responding to Republican partisanship with Democratic partisanship could open the door to that too!

Moreover, if Democrats respond to this by pulling the current compromise-ladden crap fest off the table and putting a good bill built on progressive principles (including birth control funding, supertrains, health care, etc) and the GOP doesn’t respond by begging their way back to the table, then as Tim says – we get a good bill that’s more likely to succeed and help the economy.

I swear to God, watching Democrats function in DC is like watching a group of sky divers who are constantly surprised by the laws of gravity.

Simple Question

Bob Herbert asks a simple question:

The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.

I would hazard that the reason Republicans are still listened to by the press (presumably the audience Herbert is asking about, as it’s pretty clear the public doesn’t buy their bunk any more) is that the GOP is committed to their busted ideas. They always push tax cuts – they have conviction. Put that up against Democrats who, for example, in the space of 48 hours were arguing vociferously on TV in defense of the inclusion of stimulus spending on birth control to the President “begging” congressional leaders to remove the money from the bill. Between people that re fairly convinced that their ideas are right and a crowd that moves with the political winds, the GOP’s ideas will always sound credible.

If Democrats can’t find courage to stand by their convictions (presuming they have convictions in the first place), they will continue to lose the ideological battle on the economy, taxation, and how government can make peoples’ lives better. The victims in this batttle will not necessarily be Democratic elected official who may be forced into early retirement through elections. Rather the real victims are  poor, working, and middle class Americans.

Bipartisanship

One of the things I’ve long written about was the extent over the last eight (but especially five) years the word “electability” was used in such a way in the press and with DC insiders as to make Republican base voters normative for all America. That is, a Republican candidate is electable if he or she can get Republican base voters to support them, whereas electable Democrats are ones who could be viewed as having a good chance of getting conservative Republicans to vote for them. It’s obviously bunk, but it’s a concept that has been used to push the window in which political debate takes place significantly to the right.

As with Paul Krugman, I think a similar thing has happened regarding the word bipartisanship. In Washington, bipartisanship has to do with the propensity for Democrats to embrace Republican policies and help them get passed. It doesn’t mean compromise, unless you’re a Democrat. It takes Republican policy views (privatizing Social Security, bailing out Wall Street but not Main Street, staying in Iraq indefinitely) and makes them normative. Hence the only Democrats who are seem as being bipartisan are people like Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, all of whom happily embrace Republican views from time to time. Naturally Joe Lieberman is the poster child for bipartisanship.

Krugman brings out this dynamic well in a blog post on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s salvo against Democratic partisanship in the context of resisting the privatization of Social Security at the start of Bush’s second term. Krugman gets to the nut of the problem:

So Mr. McConnell regards it as damnably partisan of Democrats not to go along with an attempt to destroy the legacy of the New Deal. Presumably, then, his idea of bipartisanship would be for Democrats and Republicans to work together, harmoniously, to destroy the legacy of the New Deal.

This is exactly right and it’s also exactly what we should expect in coming weeks and months as the GOP and their compliant press  ramp up the pearl clutching over the lack of “bipartisanship” from the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.

There’s a very simple reason why please for bipartisanship from the press and from the right should be ignored and President Obama has said it himself: he won. Overwhelmingly. The public wants the Obama agenda and have given him a large majority in both legislative chambers to achieve it. As such, bipartisanship is a word that hides its true meaning in Washington. Pleas for bipartisanship are nothing more than pleas for the Republican policy agenda to be implemented while they do not control the White House nor Congress.

I hope that Democrats generally and the Obama team in particular learn to ignore any requests for bipartisanship, as that word does not mean what they want you to think it means.