Bipartisanship baloney

Vice President Joe Biden, left, and House Speaker John Boehner, right. / JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

This post originally appeared on Slate.

In Washington, when senators from the two parties arrive simultaneously at a microphone, you've got yourself a "gang." Threats of bipartisanship soon follow. White papers and frameworks are issued. The lifespan of a gang is well-documented: Its members rush through the marble halls of Congress, trailed by a clot of reporters. Then it's on to the green rooms before they become extinct. Yet, even in Washington, hope still triumphs over experience. So this week, members ofthe "gang of eight" came to the microphone pushing immigration reform, and the old folk tales of bipartisanship were once again in the news.

Amateur meteorologists claim to have spotted other flickers of the bipartisan phenomena. President Obama and Republican leaders reached a deal on a three-month extension of the debt limit and a bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy. These are not historic acts, but why not raise a glass in tribute if for no other reason than to break the monotony of having to constantly raise a glass to drown our frustration.

But let's not mistake this for genuine bipartisanship. Or, if this is the new standard for bipartisanship, then we should change our definition of it. These examples of ghost bipartisanship are born from pressure, not cooperation. Lawmakers aren't reasoning together; one side is crying uncle. That will almost certainly be true of any immigration reform measure that passes (if the reform effort doesn't break down under the weight of the partisanship itself).

• Senate passes bill to suspend debt limit
• Schumer: "This will be the year" immigration reform passes

The folk story of bipartisanship goes like this: The two parties tackle a common problem, they fight like hell, but both sides ultimately give up something to get a deal. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neillnegotiated a compromise over Social Security. In 1990, George H.W. Bush forged a deal to reduce the deficit with Democratic leaders. In 1997, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a balanced budget agreement. These bipartisan moments were not simply the product of reason divorced from acrimony and politics. As President Truman said, "There was never a nonpartisan in politics. A man cannot be a nonpartisan and be effective in a political party." But today's droplets of bipartisanship are distinct from that tradition. They come not from shared sacrifice but from one side giving in. Charles Krauthammer says Republicans got rolled on the fiscal cliff talks. The Weekly Standard and Sen. Rand Paul say Republicans blinked on the debt limit fight.

On the issue of immigration, the bipartisan opportunities exist not because wise men from both parties have decided to solve one of the nation's most pressing issues, but because Republicans are giving in to the pressure created by the last election. This fact is clear by the host of Republicans who once opposed or were skeptical of any immigration-reform package that included "amnesty" but who are now supporting it. It's not about policy; it's about politics. Similarly, on the question of gun control, there is an emerging consensus that Congress will support background checks for gun purchases. This too could be called bipartisanship, except that it's an emergency event brought on by the Newtown, Conn., massacre, which means it tells us nothing about the baseline health of bipartisanship.

If recent cooperation shouldn't be confused with new bipartisan vigor, there's another new reason to be skeptical: history. Barack Obama's re-election marks only the second time that three consecutive presidents have served consecutive two-year terms. The last time was Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. This gives us three modern examples of the presidential learning curve. After re-election, presidents of both parties draw the same conclusion: Bipartisanship is a pipe dream.

In Bill Clinton's second inaugural address, he declared his election would bring about a new bipartisan era. "The American people returned to office a president of one party and a Congress of another. Surely they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore." This was true long enough for the president to reach a budget deal with Republicans--just before his second term devolved into impeachment hearings. When Republicans pursued him for lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, Clinton interpreted it as nothing more than blind partisanship.

In 2004, after George W. Bush was re-elected, the man who once promised to unite and not divide entered his second term with a far dimmer view of compromise. "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said despite his narrow victory. Bush's definition of bipartisanship meant other people falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." Bush later admitted that when giving his State of the Union address, herelished the partisan reaction it provoked. "Sometimes I look through that teleprompter and see reactions. I'm not going to characterize what the reactions are, but nevertheless it causes me to want to lean a little more forward into the prompter, if you know what I mean. Maybe it's the mother in me."

Like Clinton, President Obama faces the prospect of hammering out deals with a divided government, but he reached the opposite conclusion. The president's aggressive second-term trajectory was evident even before he gave his inauguration speech, but the speech set the emotional tone for a second term full of conflicts. When Obama's top political adviser argues that Democrats don't have "an opposition party worthy of the opportunity," it cemented the proof.

There may be bipartisan progress in the months to come, but it will be of a tougher kind. Members of the two parties may join arms and make a deal, but it won't be the result of fellow feeling, conciliation, or understanding. If there's going to be gang-like behavior that achieves bipartisanship, it's more likely to come through a headlock than a hug.

More from Slate:

Did anyone tell Chuck Hagel there would be questions?
Play the Slate News Quiz
Ted Cruz's Bogus Attack on Hagel

[stevehamilton858]

Mr. Dickerson: Let's get into the real world. Four years ago Mitch McConnell served notice that the GOP had declared war on president Obama with his infamous "my number one priority" comment. for some reason, the president gave the GOP a hall pass until the second presidential debate, when he took off his gloves and directly confronted the hapless GOP candidate. to anyone who has ever studied even a little bit of military history, what the president is doing right now is what has to be done in order to win a war - and that is to use confrontation intelligently. General Blackjack Pershing in WW1 got our allies to change their strategy, and get out of their trenches and go on the attack with us to defeat the Kaiser.

In today's political climate, there will be no chance for bipartisanship until the GOP appoints a first class leader of the party, throws the misnamed "Tea Party" under the bus, and reconstitutes its membership to something like that which Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed - right leaning centrists. The Tea Party is a rebirth of the Anti-Federalist group of 200 years (plus or minus)ago, when the Anti-Federalists lost the debate with the Federalists - which is why the Constitution reads as it does.

Today, no moderate Republican who would like to negotiate with the Democrats is painted as a traitor to the "Conservative" (as defined by the Tea Party) cause. Just this week, Scott Brown, someone who could be an enormous asset to the Republican Party, decided not to run for Kerry's seat, because he feared he would get hammered by the Tea Party and would end up in a mud slinging nomination contest with a really, really far right adversary.

[Rocksman]

Lots of Crappola from all sides here today.

[antoniof123]

Did any of you read this or are you just repeating what your party tells you?

My God you are fighting like them, Congress refuses to collaborate. Notice the word, think about this both sides have goood and bad ideas.

If you don't work to find only the good ideas from both sides you will end up with only the bad.

The peasents are at the gates with Pitchforks and as soon as they realize that they have more in common then the ones who are in power they will turn their Pitchforks on them.

That is history, so you can force them to break the deadlocks by looking at what it is you really believe not what they believe.

[ThomasSense]

Climate change has been bipartisan for decades. Typically, Republicans have defended business and Democrats have defended the people. During the Bush administration, science reports were obstructed or changed. Coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity dependent industry lobbies have also slowed Congress in holding hearings and dealing with this issue.
The Obama administration has enabled the truth to be told. 13 government agencies have given input to a "Climate Assessment Report." http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/ In this report, projections are made for how climate change will impact America. It is broken down by region and industry.

[johnlockesghost]

bush excelled at pulling the wool over people's eyes. The republicans believed him to be one of their own, which he was not, congress believed him when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were working on building an atomic weapon, which they did not and were not, and that he was a new kind of conservative, or neo-conservative, which he was, but which is neither new, nor conservative. Conclusion, he fooled everybody and he screwed everybody!

[nygurl1]

John - Do you really believe the shrub had the brains to do anything?
Rove & Cheney ran his presidency. ..He was just a mouthpiece.

[ThomasSense]

I trust the National Guard to protect me in so many ways. I trust the police to come if I need them. I don't need a militia of citizens. There is one adult neighbor's son who I don't trust with a gun. The police have been to his house on a couple occasions in the past. In the "wild west" a person had to check in their gun when entering town. You are welcome to keep your gun for protection or sport, but there are some people that should not have a gun.
You would think that Israel would have all of its citizens packing heat because there could be terrorist anywhere. However, they limit gun access. Israel requires renewal of licenses for owning a gun including a medical exam. Israel has a data base of gun owners, but the NRA opposes that. It can take days to trace the serial number of a gun here because Congress opposed electronic records. So, how can the government prevent mentally ill or criminals from having guns if they can't use modern electronic means?
Time magazine stated that the gun that was used to kill 26 lives at Sandy Hook could shoot 45 rounds in a minute. That is insane and unreasonable. Guns should not be enabled to kill a lot of people. There needs to be a limit on gun clips. Gifford's shooter was tackled because he was reloading. When I lived 30 minutes from law enforcement, I had a gun. I didn't know if I would encounter a wild dog or a snake. I wanted protection too. A constitutional amendment does not have to be past to "regulate" gun owners with reasonable restrictions.

[johnlockesghost]

The 2nd amendment was not written into law for the purpose of allowing people to hunt, its purpose was to allow citizens to defend themselves against any would be tyrant. For that reason, this right cannot be infringed by regulation or restriction. However, the need to prevent the mentally unstable from acquiring, or keeping arms has merit since that is the real problem and the only way to solve that problem legally is by amending the constitution. However, in doing so what constitutes mental instability and how often arms owners require evaluation would have to be very specific since the constitution also provides citizens with other safeguards.

As to your comment about the "wild west", Texas still requires people to check their guns when entering a bar.

[laser2w]

Democrats live with their heads up their arses. They want to restrict an actual Constitutional right, gun ownership, but they whine like the stuck pigs they are when the rights of a ***** to kill her unborn child are proposed. And then those *****, who claim ultimate control of their bodies, circumcise their male children as if the ownership of one's own body control ceases when the ovaries disappear.

Democrats think that the rich owe more money to the government yet ask absolutely nothing of the 50% of Americans who don't pay any income taxes. Instead of breeding self-responsiblity, Democrats breed generations of leeches. Somehow we have found everything is the power of the Federal Government while the Founding Fathers clearly stated in the Constitution the only powers of the Feds are specifically outline and the rest go to the states.

Democrats continue to lobby to make felons - those who steal the American experience - somehow equal to citizens but not really citizens but if they pay enough then they can be considered citizens but not really until they get in line but they've been here long enough that we just can't kick them out. Yeah - they say all of that in one breath.

It is always refreshing when our Dark Lord, the One, the Messiah, is tougher on Republicans than he is with terrorists. Oh, sure - this traitor will chase terrorists with Drones, but actually acknowledging that there is terrorism is something that can't be mentioned. But he can attack Fox News and Rush Limbaugh by name.

In the end, Democrats in the Senate have controlled that institution for the last four years yet they've never passed an annual budget despite that specifically being their job. Not one Senator has been impeached for failing to do his job in these years. And Harry Reid continues in power. I guess failing to do your job is a reason for perpetuating employment.

When the President's minions spin that they have created 5 million jobs since they took control, they never mention that 8.5 million Americans no longer are seeking jobs - and if those people were actually counted in the unemployment numbers, the unemployment rate would have been near 12% today, not 7.9%. And did you notice the unemployment rate for October and November has just been revised up?

[johnlockesghost]

There is an avenue all spelled out in the constitution for anybody to read that defines how our laws may be modified when necessary. It's called the amendment process and I dare the democrats to change either the 2nd amendment or our immigration law, or both, using this facility. They won't try, because they know that the majority of people, as represented by their state legislatures, would never accept such changes. Rather, they will attempt to make these changes unconstitutionally hoping that the media, in collusion with them, will convince the people that it's acceptable.

[qyeteye]

Great - Now do the Republicans.

God knows they give you plenty of history to work with.

You know, like "deficits don't matter", quiet support for open borders to drive down labor costs, buy and sell of government and "starve the beast" to make it ineffective, gerrymander district majorities while suppressing popular votes, ignoring will of the people, etc.

Go get em...

[ThomasSense]

Republicans live in a bubble. They listen to the talking heads on Fox or read the Wall Street editorials. Mostly lies or half truths. When the economy should be stimulated with federal spending, they want to cut spending. When people are foreclosed, they say they bought too much of a house when they just need a job. Keynesian economics has historically proven itself, but they want austerity. Look at the growth of Europe to see the recession they are experiencing.

The rich have gotten their money back on the stock market, but the regular guy is waiting for stability in their lives and their home values.

The Wall Street Journal editorials about climate change are a laugh. I wouldn't go to a doctor with half a education. Republicans find another source so you can read some truth instead of amplifying half truths or lies.

[erzkarlaspern]

TOM: Thank heavens for Fox, not because it's God's Word, but because it presents an Alternate form of news from the Official one of the "mainstream" Media. I am worried about the partisanship of these mainstreamers who played into the Democratic Party's lines continually. Both parties must be held to the test, but that was not evident in this last election. Very worrisome for the health of the nation. The Obama administration is defended by the mainstream media and critics are put down. Are we going to Pravda and Izvestia? John Peter Zenger, help us!

[OldProfessor]

John, you are hopeless. It is the cheap labor provided by our non-citizens who are keeping many of our cheap-skate companies afloat and helping reduce the stress to our Social Security.

[johnlockesghost]

You forgot to mention that the cheap-skate companies are also performing illegal acts by hiring their illegal labor and that these cheap-skate companies would have been fined had the Obama administration done their sworn duty and upheld the law. These companies ought to be put out of business whether, or not it increases the stress on Social Security which, BTW is a moot point were these cheap-skates employing American citizens.

[nygurl1]

jonnyboy - why does the President have to do all those things?
He's not a cop! ...He's not going to visit all those "cheap companies" and take a head count. ...I would think, if it is really the governments problem, that Commerce would be responsible!
I have no problem putting them out of business if I thought there was any point in cutting off the cat's head for missing the mouse!
Some of the illegals are using other peoples IDs and therefore contributing to SS, but that money will go to the true owner of that SS # if he/she is alive.
Pity your hatred is so blinding!

[tsigili]

The Dem socialists, have not compromised on anything at all, in the entire past 4 yrs. Nor do they intend to compromise on anything at all, in the next 4 yrs.

Count on everything to remain a disaster, as the dictator seeks to control the entire government, including ALL of the branches.

[OldProfessor]

When the Democrats are right, Republicans say NO at their peril. That is the way politics work.

[peter_out]

The economy is in the tank for regular people. About half of America is in the tank. The other half doesn't have a clue about the first half.

End the deficit. Defer war, foreign aid, pensions, healthcare, and whatever else in order to succeed. If it means we must borrow from China, whomever, to put on a face that the US is a bigshot, then it's simply not worth it.

Success means taking care of Americans first using American money. We can take care of ourselves.

Users, start paying cash. For example Egypt. If in fact it makes any sense to provide American tanks and F16s to Egypt, then let Egypt pay cash, and in advance. If Egypt doesn't have the cash, let Egypt borrow the money from China, not the United States. Egypt can have the debt not the US. Just one example.

Another example. Every country in the United Nations should pay $1000 a week dues. Now, if the United Nations needs hundreds of millions of dollars to do their thing, let them borrow the money from China instead of the United States borrowing the money from China. The United Nations can have the debt, not the US.

Who does the US think she is kidding? The US is not paying for $1.4 Trillion of items a year, the US is borrowing from the $1.4 Trillion a year from China. China is the true payer.

[nonpolitico]

Peter-Out: I just read some comments from 1978!!
During that year, the Permanent debt ceiling....forgive my chortle...was $400Billion...(this was up to $700 Billion by the end of that year!

With the present Deficit approaching $700 TRILLION, it is well past time that Congress be denied the right to increase Social Spending programs for the redistribution of YOUR earnings to others!
All have increased in cost faster...some twice as fast...as tax receipts over the years.

In session after session,Congress meets and solemnly approve a quote "Temporary" unquote debt ceiling to cover whatever deficit they have in mind.
The inflation caused by these deficits is then counted on by those same Congressmen to bring in extra revenues.
A spokesman for the Congressional budget office predicted (May 1978), that these inflationary revenues would result in USA having a balanced budget by 1982!!!!
As estimated revenues were already earmarked for spending before the tax was gathered in that year, it is clear that it was "more of the same", a dodgy wheeze which has been employed by Washington ever since!(and before)!
Now, we can understand why, here in 2013, with the same practices unchanged for over 30yrs,it is no surprise that the present deficit (near $17 TRILLION this time), is still being "solemnly approved" by that same Congress!!
For every penny added to the cost of living index the govt will get a penny and a half!
Inflation is good business for Govt. (Not such good business for the taxpaying citizen), Don`t you agree??

[johnlockesghost]

The way government works is they pass laws that cost money into perpetuity and then try to figure out how they're going to pay for it. That's a hard concept to grasp for most people because when they spend money, including using credit cards and/or other debt facilities,unlike the government, which raises the debt ceiling, the spending comes to a screeching halt when the money runs out.