Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGOP Schools Obama on Partisanship
It is possible that President Barack Obama genuinely believes in reaching out to Republicans or perhaps he is just going through the motions because he knows the American people favor bipartisanship. But he can no longer harbor any real hope that his overtures to the GOP will bring significant votes for his policies.
On Wednesday, when the House voted on the $819 billion stimulus bill, which many economists say is vital for the United States to avoid a possible depression, not a single Republican supported the legislation.
The Democrats had to provide all the 244 votes that sent the package over to the Senate, where leading Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have already announced their determination to fight the bill.
Sure there are weaknesses in the House version - in part because Obama had Democrats shelve some direct spending on the nation's creaky infrastructure in favor of putting in $275 billion in tax cuts designed to win over some Republican votes.
Still, the bill was picked at by House Republicans who complained about some features, like repairs to the National Mall and family-planning money. So Obama pressured Democrats to remove those criticized items. Still the Republican caucus voted unanimously against the bill.
This solid phalanx of GOP opposition is now the latest -- and clearest -- evidence that the national Republicans have settled on a strategy similar to the one the party followed after Bill Clinton took office in 1993, when the Democrats also held majorities in the House and Senate. The Republicans sought to strangle the young Democratic administration in the cradle.
Clinton, too, made gestures of bipartisanship. He helped sweep several Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug just like Obama has been signaling that he will look forward, not backwards, about George W. Bush's abuses. But the Republicans and their right-wing media allies responded with an all-out war on Clinton and his mildly reformist agenda. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
Targeting Clinton
Much like Wednesday's unanimous GOP vote against Obama's stimulus package, the Republicans in 1993 denied Clinton even one vote for his first budget because it contained some tax increases (which later were credited with bringing the U.S. budget nearly into balance and helping set the stage for a broad economic expansion).
Like today, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh took the lead in rallying Republicans into unrelenting opposition to the Democratic administration. Day in and day out, Limbaugh regaled his huge audience with three hours of mocking attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton, just like today when he has announced his desire for Obama to fail.
Regarding Clinton, the Republicans stirred up harshly partisan investigations. In early 1994, the Republicans succeeded in getting a GOP special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, appointed to investigate Clinton's past financial dealings. Other investigations, also under the control of right-wing prosecutors, took aim at key members of Clinton's staff.
In February 1994, when I covered the annual Conservative Political Action Conference - a kind of trade show for the Right - I was stunned by the volume of hate-Clinton paraphernalia. Never had I seen anything like this well-organized, well-funded determination to destroy a political figure.
As 1994 wore on, the Republicans harassed, undermined and ultimately killed Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health care.
By November 1994, a resurgent Republican Party - energized by its hatred of the Clintons - wrested control of Congress from the Democrats. Limbaugh's role was viewed as so important that he was made an honorary member of the new House Republican majority.
After those congressional victories, Republicans intensified their assaults on Clinton. Starr expanded his investigation into Clinton's clumsy efforts to cover up an extramarital affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In late 1998, the Republican-controlled House impeached Clinton, though the President mustered enough Democratic votes to survive a trial in the Senate.
Though the Republicans failed to drive Clinton from the White House, the impeachment battle set the stage for George W. Bush's run for President behind the promise that he would restore "honor and dignity" to the White House.
During Campaign 2000, Clinton's Vice President Al Gore became a kind of whipping boy for Clinton's enemies both in the political world and in the press. Gore still clawed his way to a narrow popular-vote victory in November 2000, but the race was close enough for five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court to deliver the White House to Bush.
Partisan Divide
Then, despite Bush's promises to be "a uniter, not a divider," he interpreted his tainted victory as a mandate to push through a right-wing agenda that included steep tax cuts weighted in favor of the wealthiest Americans, widening the deficit that had been virtually eliminated under Clinton.
Dov. S. Zakheim, a foreign policy adviser to Bush's 2000 campaign and a Pentagon official during his first term, later admitted in a Washington Post opinion article that Bush dropped his "compassionate conservative" mask soon after taking office.
"We came to a bitterly divided Washington and poured salt on partisan wounds, culminating in an ugly divide-and-rule style of politics," Zakheim acknowledged.
After the 9/11 attacks, when Democrats and many other Americans swore off partisanship in the cause of national unity, Bush seized the moment to arrogate unprecedented powers to himself. Then, in fall 2002, he exploited America's fear and anger to push through a pre-election Iraq War authorization and still branded the Democrats as soft on terror.
Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who had lost three limbs in the Vietnam War, was defeated after being virtually equated with terrorist Osama bin Laden.
By 2004, Bush and his political guru Karl Rove had set their sights on a "permanent Republican majority" that would relegate the Democrats to a cosmetic appendage to the GOP's one-party state. Republicans would control all levers of government power, including federal prosecutors and the federal courts, and would be backed by an intimidating right-wing news media.
Under Bush, the only freedom that seemed left to many Americans was the freedom to follow him. If you didn't, you'd be labeled unpatriotic or un-American. You might even face career punishment and physical threats, like those meted out to the Dixie Chicks for daring to criticize Bush at a pre-Iraq-invasion concert.
Similarly, anyone who threatened Republican electoral dominance got a steady does of smears, like the Swift Boat attacks on Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War heroism. At Bush's 2004 convention, some GOP delegates wore Purple Heart Band-Aids to mock the severity of Kerry's war wounds.
After Election 2004, with Bush gaining a second term and the Republicans again owning both houses of Congress, Rove ally Grover Norquist mused that Democrats should learn to get along in Washington by becoming like castrated pets to their Republican masters.
Talking the Talk
Sometimes when Republicans faced reversals, as they did in Election 2006, they revived some talk of bipartisanship because the American people had grown tired of the political bickering.
Yet, even if some Republicans genuinely wanted a more bipartisan approach, such a change seemed impossible - after decades of exploiting "wedge" tactics and relying on a right-wing media built to destroy opponents.
In recent years, when Republicans talked about repudiating "partisan rancor" - like John McCain did at the 2008 Republican National Convention - the rhetoric was usually followed by another binge of partisan rancor, like Sarah Palin's attacks on Obama for "palling around with terrorists" or McCain's own smearing of Obama as a "socialist."
As I have written before, the idea of transforming modern Republicanism into some less partisan form may be like trying to train a boa constrictor which fork to use at the dinner table.
Beyond the fact that today's Republican congressional caucus has fewer moderates than ever before, there's also the influence of the powerful right-wing media that runs on the high-octane fuel of anti-liberal hate. This machinery now faces a business imperative to find attack lines that can be used to tear down Obama and build up audience share.
For instance, on Jan. 16, four days before Obama's Inauguration, Limbaugh was publicly rooting for Obama to fall on his face. "I hope he fails," Limbaugh bluntly declared.
A day after the Inauguration, Limbaugh expanded on his anti-Obama views.
"You know racism in this country is the exclusive problems of the Left," Limbaugh said. "We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the Inauguration. We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black President."
In other words, Limbaugh is appealing to his largely white, male audience to see itself as the victim of some "reverse racism," with the graphic image of white men bent over being subjected to sexual humiliation - and presumably anal rape - by a black man.
Despite these growing signs of Republican obstructionism and sabotage, Obama continued to pursue his goal of a post-partisan Washington. His first post-Inaugural trip to Capitol Hill on Jan. 27 involved meetings with House and Senate Republicans, not Democrats.
Already, Obama had devoted about one-third of the stimulus package to tax cuts aimed at winning over some Republican votes. He weathered Democratic complaints that the tax cuts prevented additional spending on the nation's infrastructure, a strategy that many economists say would generate more jobs and provide longer-term value to the nation.
Despite his concessions, Obama ended up getting whip-sawed by Republicans who complained that the tax cuts weren't big enough and, ironically, some joined in castigating him for shorting the infrastructure spending. In the end, his personal appeals and his deletions of some items opposed by Republicans still failed to secure a single Republican vote for the House bill.
So, in a replay of 1993, the Republicans made clear with their unanimous vote against the stimulus bill that they - like Rush Limbaugh - are determined to see the new President fail.
Now, the question is whether Obama will give up his quixotic bid to woo Republicans - and instead support a stimulus package that will do the most to help the country - or whether he will continue making more concessions to the Republicans in hopes that they will undergo a sudden transformation.
23 Comments so far
Show Alldumddown
Possibly the only difference between the Clinton and Obama presidentcies will be that Obama's will end after one term. The destruction of Obama will be easier as the Rep strategy is a well honed instrument and Dem's are too afraid to support him. Also it easy to slander a black "foreiner" in the USA.
Also beware of the 40th Senator. The Repubs can block all legislation by threatening a filibuster which the Dems cannot overcome in the present makeup of the Senate. My impression is that the R's will control legislation just as effectively in the minority as in the majority.
As far as I can tell what this vote actually proved is that Dems can write policy without party concern since they passed the bill without a single GOP vote. Now that it is obvious that the GOP votes are unneccessary, it is time to create legislation that enpowers the Change people Can Believe in, Dems could even drop corporate sponsorship in favor of policies that get The People's needs met(that way politicos won't need millions in re-election funds to keep office, they'll have the votes already) Imagine - a govt by and for The People!
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
The Republicans in the House have shown for all to see that they care nothing about bi-partisanship, working together to solve nation's problems, or about the ordinary people in their districts. I hope that progressives will take this opportunity to talk to the 46% of people who voted Republican in the last election. This is a teaching moment.
Same with Obama - hope he begins to see how he is rewarded for being conciliatory with vipers. They have no capacity for complex thought.
Joe
The Republican right are the shock-troops for the ruler-profiters of the dollar, the world's designated "currency of last resort". These ruler-profiters are the undisclosed owners of the Federal Reserve (being neither).
The world's population (now 6.8 billion) has doubled since the mid-1960'ies. (Redoubled since 1913). That growth's been carried by the dollar pyramid-scheme established 1913 Jekyll island / Federal Reserve, and 1945 Bretton Woods system / World Bank group.
The increased number of individuals globally are the constantly new "investors" in the dollar Ponzi-scheme, investing their labor in desperate hopes of surviving. About 1 billion people now live in starvation, up 100 million the last five years only, scrambling to participate - in any near-survivable conditions available. World population increases by about 80 million annually. And these millions are largely economically expendable, being labor "surplus" to the scheme of the wealth-pyramid. To understand the cynicism of this system, the trivialities of (western) people suffering as presented in our common communication-channels of the media, must always be measured against the over 30,000 people dying daily (!) from malnutrition/starvation. In that context, very little of human havoc, disruption and death matters - to the dollar pyramid-scheme.
Throughout the wild growth-period of the last 100 years, a lot of people live better lives materially, but more people live dramatically worse lives materially too.
Only by keeping the pyramid in the constant movement of profit-growth are these realities kept generally invisible. That's probably why the Pope and Republicans are firmly against family planning and voluntary birth-control. But now the carrying capacity of the biosphere is exhausted. People currently consume 125 % of the biospere's annual regeneration. Simply put, we're consuming more than the Earth creates. Because of this the pyramid-scheme of the dollar is breaking down. Hard change coming. Human population either stabilizing at much lower average consumption, or downsizing cruelly - murderously. That's our choice.
While I believe in Obama's necessary inclusive bent, he hopefully sees its limits.
Obama's up against the classic paradox of how to be tolerant to the intolerant.
Soulution: be tolerant and inviting cooperation on the level of dialogue, while firm and confrontative in action - and describing the connection, upholding the explicit goals plus revealing in factual terms how the intolerants are thwarting the common goals to benefit their own narrow purposes. Purposes which are starkly detri-mental to right-wingers too. But their aggressive stances keep them from seeing that.
Action speaks louder than words. But words can hinder or help action.
The situation screams: Choose now - growth or survival.
Obama had to flush them out !!! Now thatthe Rebs have shown their true colors ,lets see the rest of OBAMA'S FIGHT GAME
It never fails to amaze me how gullible CD readers and Dems/Dums generally are. Now, Obama just gave away the AMT and funding for contraception plus corporate tax cuts and probably had great reason to believe -- as Parry's piece amply demonstrates in its example of the GOP relationship with the Clintons -- that he would get little to no GOP votes.
Do you think that "Bipartisanship" might be a pretext to conform to the corporate status quo while saving face among Dem rank and file like yourselves? He has retained Republicans and continues to mouth Bush admin policies. He comes from the Milton Friedman school of Voodoo Economics at U Chicago. Across the board, in outlook, in ideological approach, he is pretty much Republican albeit with a savvier political style. Did you enjoy the Inauguration Day prayer sessions? Do you enjoy all options still on the table with Iran?
Aren't you hip to this little game yet? Or will you go on foaming at the mouth about the GOP just like Obama and his boys expect you to?
Unfortunately, even Parry is framing it this way too.
I have no issues with Obama trying to build bipartisan support but the time should be short and if no willingness exists, he should respect popular opinion and eviscerate the GOP. Who would support them? These jerks are Republican "Me Firsts" and not Americans.
Obama should take advantage of the current situation and stick it to the Bush Administration for their broad violations of constitutional law among other felonies.
He should apply Grover Norquist's position on government to the GOP itself. Shrink it until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub. If they want to fight, kick their racist, anti-US, anti-environment, anti-fiscal responsibility, single-minded, single digit IQ asses down the road!
Obama should go after Bush & the GOP for War Crimes.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Parry writes; “Sure there are weaknesses in the House version - in part because Obama had Democrats shelve some direct spending on the nation's creaky infrastructure in favor of putting in $275 billion in tax cuts designed to win over some Republican votes.”
Not a single House Republican voted for the Stimulus package, I hope that every damned dollar of tax cuts are removed from the bill in the Senate version and at committee the tax cuts are removed from the final version of the bill. Extending unemployment benefits, public works to improve the infrastructure, bailing out state and local governments that are slashing services and a dozen other types of Federal spending have a far greater economic multiplier effect than tax cuts.
If the shoe was on the other foot the republicans would not hesitate for a nanosecond to screw over the democrats, all making nice with republicans accomplishes is to empower them as a minority party. If Obama does not use the State of the Union speech as a frontal assault on the right wing in the U.S. his presidency will be a failure in less than one month.
"...I hope that every damned dollar of tax cuts are removed from the bill in the Senate version..."
- You're wasting your energy hoping that. It's already known that the Senate will ADD at least another $70 billion to the tax cuts, to further appease Republicans.
"... If Obama does not use the State of the Union speech as a frontal assault on the right wing in the U.S. his presidency will be a failure in less than one month."
- There is zero chance of him making any "frontal assault." In fact, there is zero chance of him even giving them an itsy-bitsy wrist slap. He's a Democrat, right? When did you last see a Democrat standing up to the right-wing? In his entire 20 month campaign for president, Obama scarcely said a word about Republicans (except when he was expressing his admiration for Reagan).
One of the most appalling things about Obama's early overtures to Republicans is that such gestures have never and never would be reciprocated, and Obama the political genius is apparently not smart enough to see this. As Parry says, Republicans rushed to destroy the Clinton presidency as early as possible, and ramped up their destructive urges in 1994 and '96 via Gingrich's hit squads. Obama seems to have no memory of this, or he isn't concerned because he's fine with this version of "bipartisanship." It means Democrats freely allow Republicans to issue their marching orders and Dems meekly comply, with the occasional feeble protest. No matter how large a majority in either House, Dems still feel inferior before their belligerent "opponents." Obama is quick to assure them there will be no serious opposition, by throwing tax cuts their way again, threatening to surge in Afghanistan and bomb Pakistan on a lark. Meanwhile, what do they concede to their immensely popular president from the other party? Nothing. This is change we can swallow like castor oil.
True, but give him a chance. Losing a battle is not losing the war.
There is no "war," not among Obama and the Republicans. That's the whole point, and the point of his commitment to bipartisanship. He conceded to them from the very beginning. He makes proposals, they knock down every one of them, he concedes to most of their demands, they still obstruct and vote against him 100%, he concedes further, and we're left with a Republican agenda still in control. That's what bipartisanship actually means.
Sioux Rose
I dare say it's all in the interest of giving spectators, i.e. the voting "audience" a good show. Can't well have a democracy if both parties PROVE they represent the same interests in broad daylight. Much wiser to have elaborate shows of smoke and mirrors to give the semblance of choice, of debate, of "arriving at" consensus. Good cop, bad cop, they know who makes out their checks. Ideally that would be us, the taxpayers, but that, too, has become a rather quaint notion, much like The Geneva Conventions, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
By the way, your writing and analysis are always sound. Thank you for your insights.
Parry sez: "By 2004, Bush and his political guru Karl Rove had set their sights on a "permanent Republican majority" that would relegate the Democrats to a cosmetic appendage to the GOP's one-party state."
***
Mission accomplished.
Very good piece, Mr. Parry, on the recent history of the Republican modus operandi. Stonewalling every major initiative of the Democrats and publicly attacking it by any available line (even if the line is based on demonstrably false assumptions, like tax cuts are as effective in stimulating the economy as government spending) makes sense when you understand politics to be warfare by other means. The all-out assault againt President Clinton, stonewalling major legislation, including shutting down the gov't, and systematic character assassination worked: much of the Clinton agenda was effectively blocked and Clinton's image and legacy were tarnished.
Obama has to launch a major roadshow/education campaign. Taking a page from the Ronald Reagan's playbook, Obama needs to travel the country and provide succinct speeches always with visually compelling backdrops to sell the importance of fiscal stimulus, the need for government leadership in creating a significant green energy sector, building mass transit and infrastructure, creating jobs, etc. The Obama roadshow must include the industrial heartland as well as states of Republican senators, and meetings with progressive leaders so that they are encouraged and get airtime.
Unlike the demagogic Reagan/Bush sale jobs however, the Obama roadshow should include academics and experts from a range of relevant fields, town-hall style citizen's forums, and other presentations examining the relevant history, including the Hoover and the FDR responses to the Great Depression, an economic exploration of how the green sector can re-ignite a US manufacturing base, analyses of counter-arguments, the role of citizen pressure groups and labor unions in forcing FDR to enact New Deal legislation, etc.
It is insufficient to garner sufficient votes to pass the stimulus bill; the public education campaign must also establish what in military parlance is called "credibility" or "deterrence." Republican leaders must learn to fear voting against Obama's major initiatives by learning that if they do so Obama will educate and organize a grass roots groundswell for his initiatives and the Republican opposition position will be unpopular and cost voter loyalty.
Compromising away key elements of major proposals, such as including more business-friendly tax cuts and removing funding for mass transit, is a bad idea and does not help advance the proposal. This is because the Republican amendments are proposed to attack the Obama initiative and not in a genuine spirit of compromise. See history of Republican attack strategy in the article. Clinton is also a good example of a conservative/centrist president with quite modest centrist proposals that were still attacked and successfully blocked.
Whatever concessions are provided, the Republicans will put them in their pockets and still work to strangle the bill in an effort to render ineffective the president, or at least in the short run, to thwart the Democratic agenda. Think back to how Reagan and Bush made their grand proposals, for example, their record tax-cuts which nearly bankrupted the federal government. It's about communication with voters and setting the agenda, not about compromising away the store to Republican senators.
Josh
"Power coceded nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Frederick Douglass
Excellent response. I, too, don't understand why the Dims can't take a page from the Pubs playbook and stay on the talking-point until they convince.
Great advice to the Obama camp. They need to hear it and heed it. But I'm not placing any bets.
It's a shame the Alien & Sedition Act was repealed. We could use it to try, convict and hang Rush Limbaugh.
The fact that Republicans are vicious scum doesn't make Democrats virtuous. Therefore, articles focused heavily on the perfidy of Republicans are a poor use of time & energy.
Beyond the fact that not a single R voted for the stimulus bill, the really important thing about the bill is that it's terrible. It's not so much a basis for economic recovery as an aspirin to palliate some of the more dire aspects of economic collapse. It's laden with concessions to Republicans -- tax cuts & govt contracts for corporate interests. It's also intended to ward off the inevitable rise in social tensions.
Extending unemployment benefits & health insurance coverage for the unemployed are nice, of course. But you can't base an economic recovery on it.
The bill serves as prelude to what the Obama administration is now preparing -- another trillion-dollar bank handout, and an "austerity" budget consisting of cuts in Social Security & Medicare benefits. (This is what the Inaugural speech augured, when it spoke of "our collective responsibility" for the financial crisis.) Also Gates' remarks in the past week make clear that the war in Afghanistan/Pak will be escalated, while the Iraq occupation will be largely maintained.
If you add up these elements, it amounts to a program of endless war, ever-more bank handouts, & a few crumbs tossed to the unemployed masses, to keep them from getting too angry. This is our "allocation of resources."
For incisive commentary on the stimulus bill, see \http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/stim-j29.shtml
DaveBronstein January 29th, 2009 1:45 pm
"The fact that Republicans are vicious scum doesn't make Democrats virtuous. Therefore, articles focused heavily on the perfidy of Republicans are a poor use of time & energy."
Yes, the bill is as inadequate and bad as you say. But articles like Parry's remain important.
The problem remains how to organize people to demand a progressive economic package. And, in this regard, exposing the implacable and extreme politics of the right - the fact that there can be no negotiation, the idea that ideology is important - remains important for progressives who want to move a greater liberal electorate left.
In the 1930s progressives never hesitated to attack the right, not simply to defend Roosevelt, but as one basis - pointing up the fascistic alternative people faced - for demanding more comprehensive change.
The egoterrorism of the GOP and the Reich Wing will be the end of America.
"A branch cut off from the adjacient branch must of necessity be cut off from the whole tree also."
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Obama was always for the elites more than the working class. He has the power to ditch the GOP but just won't do it. The same thing goes for the rest of the Democratic Party. Keep it up Obama and TX will be turning redder. Even conservative voters can vote for change but if they don't see any for the better, count on them to go back to being social cons to help the elites again.