Chuck Grassley’s Recursive Loops of Bipartisanship
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
E.J. Dionne’s column urging Barack Obama to get more active in the health care debate contains this interesting nugget:
I’m told that Grassley, under immense pressure from Republican colleagues not to deal at all, has informed Baucus that he cannot sign on to a bill if it is supported by only one other Republican, the sensible Olympia Snowe of Maine. Grassley needs more cover from more conservative colleagues.
We see here some of the oddities of attempts at bipartisanship for its own sake. As I’ve observed previously, under ordinary conditions the Senate’s post-1990 rule that you need a 60 vote supermajority to move legislation (with an exception for tax cuts for the wealthy) just amounts to a rule that only bipartisan bills can pass the Senate. But the Republican Party chose in several instances to run hardline conservative candidates in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico, etc. that went for Barack Obama. They then chose to mount a primary campaign against an incumbent moderate Senator from Pennsylvania, inspiring him to switch parties. Consequently—and unusually—there will be 60 Democratic Senators when Al Franken is seated.
I think this to some extent changes the game as far as bipartisanship is concerned. By definition any bill that 60 Senators vote for has broad legislative support, which one assumes is the virtue of a bipartisan bill. And yet despite that fact, a new consensus is emerging that for a bill to be “really” bipartisan, it’s not good enough to acquire the vote of the 41st-most-conservative Senator (Ben Nelson) or even the 40th- and 39th-most-conservative Senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). You also need an additional even more conservative Senator. And now we have Chuck Grassley signaling that his commitment to this weird principle is so strong that he would vote against a bill of which he otherwise approves unless a Senator who even more conservative than Grassley agrees to vote for it.
But what’s the point of this? Who does this help? The way bipartisan bills happen is that you forge a compromise with the moderate members of the other party. As it happens, there are only two moderate Republicans in the Senate. But that should be understood as the GOP’s problem, not the Democrats’ problem. If the GOP ran more moderate nominees, there might be more Republican Senators and then, as a matter of course, bipartisan legislation would require a broader coalition.
20 Responses to “Chuck Grassley’s Recursive Loops of Bipartisanship”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Demanding bipartisanship just for the sake of bipartisanship will kill the democratic party and any grassroots support
Obama To Progressives: Stop Working to Elect Democrats
June 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Can’t fool me, young man. It’s turtles all the way down.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
No!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Falls to floor, weeping]
June 29th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
And now we have Chuck Grassley signaling that his commitment to this weird principle is so strong that he would vote against a bill of which he otherwise approves unless a Senator who even more conservative than Grassley agrees to vote for it.
I get Matt’s point, but it is bizarre for him to argue on the assumption that Grassley is acting on the basis of principle, when the quoted material makes it quite clear Grassley is acting on the basis of political calculation.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Maybe I’m a heartless cynic, DTM, but I suspect that Matt’s use of the word “principle” could possibly be tainted with trace particles of irony.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Matt doesn’t understand. Republicans won the last election, and they are very popular in the polls. If a law passes without the approval of President McCain and Senate Majority Leader Ensign, the US will become a dictatorship.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The real mistake is thinking bipartisanship is detached from specific issues. Bipartisanship works when there are people on both sides of the debate with some interest in common ideas. For instance, no child left behind happened because bush got interested in some of the ideas of educational reformers in texas, and liberals like george miller and ted kennedy developed some interest in the same ideas. So they were able to work together.
But on issues like health care, the conservative movement decided long ago that they were going to vehemently oppose any liberal proposal. In that environment, bipartisanship can’t work.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
[Stands off. Wipes himself off.]
Shut up!
[Exit left]
June 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Maybe I’m a heartless cynic, DTM, but I suspect that Matt’s use of the word “principle” could possibly be tainted with trace particles of irony.
Sure, but as I noted the cat was already out of the bag on Grassley’s real motives. And then Matt goes on to continue to discuss this issue as if it was a matter of principle (”But what’s the point of this? Who does this help?”), without discussing the real issue of political calculation (i.e., the real point of this is that it helps Grassley, or at least so he thinks).
June 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The Democrats think Lucy is holding the football for them to kick while the Republicans are playing Calvinball.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
WTF is going on with the Al Franken court case??
June 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Grassley, under immense pressure from Republican colleagues not to deal at all
This tells you what you really need to know. When there are two parties, and one of them is committed to not making a deal, as much as or more than they are committed to any substantive position, no deal will be made; indeed, no deal can possibly be made without violating the second party’s principle against making deals. (Because compromise is for wimps. Never give up, never surrender!)
It’s now conventional wisdom that the Republicans don’t want to deal, don’t want to allow any of their individual members to deal, and want to kill anything that even smells like a deal regardless of what its content is. Maybe encouraging the Republicans to rebrand themselves this way is step 1 of some plan, but if so, I’d sure like to know what the next step is, if it’s worked out in any more detail than the Underpants Gnomes.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
WTF is going on with the Al Franken court case??
The Minnesota Supreme Court has heard the final arguments and is close to releasing what is overwhelmingly likely to be a unanimous ruling in Franken’s favor. They release rulings on Thursdays, so this or next Thursday are certainly possible. After that, probably a week for Pawlenty to dawdle before signing the certificate, and then another week for Republicans to talk about filibustering before he gets sworn in. My guess would be he’s seated in the 4-6 week range.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
With any luck at all, within two years the (former) G.O.P. will be in such complete electoral disarray as to be of no more consequence than is, say, today’s Libertarian party. If and when that point is attained, then true ‘bipartisanship’ shall become, at worst, the presumed/attempted cooperation between progressive and center-left Democrats. My hope is that all ‘pure’ centrist influence can be minimized by 2012, that liberal progressivism takes firm hold of the body politic and finally moves the US into the realm where 21st century globalism begins to overwhelm the imperial dreams and proclivities common to the small minds that typified late-20th century America.
Wage Peace, not war. Let “bipartisanship” become a legitimate exercise between groups each of whom can think — rather than between one contingent that can and does think, and the other that can’t and never has, never will. Think.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
When there are two parties, and one of them is committed to not making a deal, as much as or more than they are committed to any substantive position, no deal will be made; indeed, no deal can possibly be made without violating the second party’s principle against making deals. (Because compromise is for wimps. Never give up, never surrender!)
[Covers his ears and repeats:]
“The only good healthcare reform will come when principled men of both parties take the best elements of their ideologies and compromise on a plan with broad support.”
June 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Let’s just cut to the chase, and let them establish a rule that no bill can pass the Senate without unanimous consent. We’re practically there already.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Look. Grassley doesn’t want a goverment health care plan, unless maybe it involves more Bush-style subsidies to big pharma and big insurance.
It’s just that simple. But he’s afraid to say so directly, so all this bipartisanship nonsense falls under the category of “any excuse to do nothing.”
June 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Matt, why can’t we define “bipartisan” as working with Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh? They are to the right, have ideas (sometimes, with varying degrees of thoughtfulness/seriousness), and are more or less engaged in a process by which their stance on an issue is related to principle. This is questionable with Nelson, but I’d love to see what would happen if Robert Gibbs, with a straight face, said that a bipartisan compromise has been reached with constructive members of Congress, and then just leave the rest hanging. When the response from a reporter (say, Dana Milbank) is “but you don’t don’t include Republicans?” he would either just shrug and say no, or point out that they were not interested in the process.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
[...] than no reform at all. But Democratic lawmakers should be careful not to sacrifice good policy for the sake of winning one or two Republican votes. As the New York Times reports this morning, there is “Little Hope for G.O.P. to Support [...]
June 30th, 2009 at 2:32 am
While I’m a backer of single-payer, I’ll say that as far as even a public option goes, I think Senators who know that most people would be fine with one but aren’t backing one shows that they are terrorized by the Club for Growth and other right-wing lobbies that would end them.