Bipartisanship in Lieu of Analysis
Strikingly, David Broder thinks we could use more bipartisanship:
Scholars will also make the point that when such complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas. And they will argue that public acceptance of the mandated changes in such programs will be greater if the law comes with the imprimatur of both parties.
I would be interested in a citation for scholarship which argues that complex legislation is likely to be improved by the contribution of ideas from both sides of the aisle. I have, in fact, looked at the question of whether or not bipartisanship enhances policy stability and there turns out not to be evidence for this theory. But, hey, “scholars” will make the point. But with Congressional Republicans currently earning a 29-56 approve/disapprove split it’s hard to argue that getting them on board is crucial to the popularity of a new initiative.
Scott Lemieux, meanwhile, reminds us of Broder’s classic attack on Al Gore for being too interested in public policy:
I have to confess, my attention wandered as he went on through page after page of other swell ideas, and somewhere between hate crimes legislation and a crime victim’s constitutional amendment, I almost nodded off.
My guess is that that’s the nub of the matter. It’s somewhat difficult to try to understand policy proposals on the merits. It’s easy, by contrast, to just look at who’s supporting legislation. You can just say, “good bills are bipartisan bills, partisan bills are bad” and then look at whether or not a proposal has bipartisan support. It’s simple if you’re the kind of person inclined to nodd off if forced to listen to a discussion of policy. Personally, I’m not sure why so many people who find policy so dull are in the field of political journalism. I find it perfectly understandable that it’s not something everyone’s interested in, but it seems to me that people who aren’t interested in policy debates should be in some other line of work rather than writing columns for David Broder.
48 Responses to “Bipartisanship in Lieu of Analysis”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
…writing columns for David Broder.
Goddamnit, Matt.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Scholars will also make the point that when such complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas.
It is just so hard to obey Godwin’s Law when addressing moronically breezy generalizations of this nature.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
1) This stupid-shit “bipartisan” meme is infuriating.
2) Bitch Sarah Palin bails out of being governor of Alaska and NO ONE in the Democratic Party sees WHY. It’s the fucking Economy, stupid — Alaskan Unemployment is 8.1 percent and heading higher.
3) Democrats should be making the point that Sarah’s resignation DISQUALIFIES her from further office. She was happy to exploit the prestige of being a Governor in good times — but now that the people of Alaska are depending upon her to respond to tough times and find them jobs — she bails.
4) Because Sarah’s political career is more important to her than the welfare of her constituents. It is more important that Sarah avoid the negetive Reputation of presiding during hard times than that Alaskan parents be able to provide for their children.
5) Sarah is the very epitome of the “Cut and Run” mentality that Republicans allegedly oppose. Would we want a President who would up and reside in the middle of a war because she placed her image above the national interest?
6) Of course, we Democrats will turn blue in the face waiting for our dumbshit leaders to point out the above to the voters.
7) So Sarah will skate — and she will now have the backing of rich men to spend 100 percent of her time criticizing those men who stayed in the arena. Criticizing Obama and Biden as they try to stave off the massive disaster brought down upon us by a Republican President and a Republican Congress.
Instead, we have Stupid Joe Biden confessing IN PUBLIC to the voters that Obama “misjudged” the depth of our economic woes.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Scott Lemieux, meanwhile, reminds us of Broder’s classic attack on Al Gore for being too interested in public policy”
Tangentially, the current LGM blog subtitle is pretty fucking tasty.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“It is just so hard to obey Godwin’s Law when addressing moronically breezy generalizations of this nature.”
I’m willing to go there. David Broder is a worse version of Hitler.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
But hey — it is not as if we didn’t already know that Sarah Palin will ALWAYS abandon those who depend upon her in order to pursue HER narcissitic goals.
Anyone know if that Down’s infant she had last year is still alive? Who’s taking care of it, by the way?
Because its mother sure as shit is not.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
We really should flood Broder and the Post with requests for said “Scholars” citations.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Plus I’m sure all those unemployed Alaskans are happy that Governor Palin hung them out to dry by REJECTING parts of the federal stimulus package that would have added to unemployment benefits.
http://wjz.com/politics/alaska.stimulus.funds.2.963808.html
Of course, Sarah was happy to accept tons of money for “infrastructure development”. Because you ain’t seen a welfare queen until you’ve seen a Republican real estate developer.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
At least Broder has got his priorities right:
I mean, Democrats could decide to privatize the FBI, declare war to Russia and ban baseball; but as long as they get some Republicans on board, those would all be lesser mistakes than horrible partisanship.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Is it just me, is Don Williams just writing his own blog posts split up over comments with no relation to the post he’s commenting on.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Broder already knows there’s nothing there. Somewhere around 15 years ago, he became a partisan tool. Of course he wants “bipartisanship” when his paymasters are out of power.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Don Williams, why would Democrats go after Palin now? She’s dead politically, no need to anger her supporters. Let them rail against Repulican elites instead.
Hey, did you see how McCain and other GOP leaders did nothing to support the great Alaska governor against attacks from the liberal media? Shame on them, I’m never voting Republican again!
July 5th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
We really should flood Broder and the Post with requests for said “Scholars” citations.
Read Dr. Thinair and Dr. Brodersass.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
people who aren’t interested in policy debates should be in some other line of work rather than writing columns for David Broder
This might be my favorite Yglesias line ever.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I believe that David Broder’s claim that “Scholars will also make the point that when such complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas.” is based on a valid point, but one which Mr. Broder does not understand and which does not support his conclusion. The thing is that when trying to develop any complex system whether national laws, scientific theories, technology etc. it is necessary to have proposed changes subject to critical review by a diverse group of independent agents. This is the basis of the scientific method and it is essential to successful development of new technologies. It is also at the heart of our democratic institutions. However, note that I say it should be subject to critical review, not that the opinions of all reviewers should be included. Some of the opinions of reviewers are nutty and those should be ignored. Ignoring the input of nutty reviewers encourages everyone else to engage in sensible review. The opinions of the current Republican leadership are nutty and would be improved if ignored. Incorporating them into the legislation will only strengthen these nutty views and weaken the legislation.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@15 Michael Robinson: “The opinions of the current Republican leadership are nutty and would be improved if ignored.”
I would replace the word “nutty” with the word “insane” but who is quibbling. Excellent comment.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Apparently the sad fact is that nobody in the Congress has ever considered governing effectively to solve problems.
Take just one little example- Medicare Part D. With all of its problems, it is at least a partial solution to what was a crisis for Medicare patients. Republicans had to lie and scheme to get it passed. But if it had been left up to the Democrats, even in the current Congress, there would be no Medicare Part D.
What Democrats should do with health care reform is to offer Medicare for all, full drug coverage, and a pony. Serve up a package that’s impossibly attractive, and some Republicans will want to vote for it to be included in the ‘good guy’ subset. Let the bitter-end Republicans take away everybody’s pony, and then declare the bargaining closed and pass the bill.
What seems more likely to happen is that Democrats will pass a bill with no real help for anyone, and then wonder why they’re not getting any thank-you notes from us. Their excuse will be “fiscal responsibility” but, of course, it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility to allow the health care crisis to fester and consume an ever-increasing share of our national income. Am I the only one who wonders why people smart enough to get elected can’t seem to figure this out?
Maybe the answer to that question is that they read too much David Broder and their brains are clogged with his platitudinous goo.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@14: I agree. In this case the Yglesias typo turns the final line into a withering insinuation that DB doesn’t even write his own columns.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’d like to see Brooks really defend how the stimulus bill was “improved” by bipartisanship.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“…some other line of work rather than writing columns for David Broder.”
Is there anything to this, or is it just a joke?
Are there rumours/stories that he doesn’t write his own columns?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
RayK, you forget which blog you’re at.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
If only Broder had been around we never would have had that civil war. A bipartisan consensus could have been made to allow slavery in all the slave states and the new states and fugitive slaves could be captured and re enslaved.
I mean this stuff is so friken easy.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@22: so true, rapier. It’s a shame that a bipartisan solution was blocked by a few extremists with an all-or-nothing view of the issue.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Broder is a clown. When one of the parties defines its position in all matters to be the opposite of what the other proposes, and is dedicated to the outcome that no legislation will pass with their support, bipartisanship is suicide.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Oh yea, one other thing. In the territories seeking statehood abolitionists could be subject to mass murder, no problem, as the price to be paid for opposition to bi partisanship.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Broder also wrote: “Many who have heard Republican leaders in Congress proclaim their opposition to almost every piece of Obama’s program are saying, “To hell with them.”
I’m one of ‘em. I truly felt that there was an opportunity for bi-partisanship and for sensible, reasonable people from both sides of the aisle co-ordinate and reach reasonable results.
There have numerous appeals to bi-partisan action and they calls have been rebuffed.
I can’t think of any reason to continue something so thoroughly rejected by the Republican an leadership and party.
Screw ‘em. As ye sow, so shall thee reap.
BTW: Sarah Palin is a %*#*&&!>^ head
July 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
If all he’s doing is writing columns for David Broder, does that make David Broder the wanker of the day?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Re post 15 by Michael Robinson
Excellent points! (May I recommend a paragraph break or two, though?)
July 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Slavery is actually a good example of how rotten bipartisanship can be. If slavery had been outlawed at the outset, it would have been a small problem- nothing like the huge problem it became after the spread of the cotton gin, the 50 years of brainwashing the South gave itself “proving” that slavery was right and sanctioned by God, and the spread of slavery west of the Mississippi.
For over 50 years the northerners sought a compromise with the south, and things just got worse and worse.
Broder’s platitudes are delicate egg white and sugar confections that collapse when you test their strength with a finger.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“Broder’s platitudes are delicate egg white and sugar confections that collapse when you test their strength with a finger.”
Please stop slandering delicate egg white and sugar confections.
Delicate egg white and sugar confections can be quite wonderful, which clearly separates them from Broder.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
It’s a meaningless goddamn phrase. I could see somebody making the argument that policies should have the support of some durable percentage of Americans far greater than 50% in order for them to be successful in the long run the current Democratic majority is a percentage far greater than 50% so I’m not sure what being bipartisan has to do with anything.
Are there any examples of bipartisan bills that passed in the last decade that had non-trivial numbers of both parties supporting it and ended up just over the 50% or 50+1 vote threshold? The only one I can think of was the Medicare B prescription drug vote in 2003 which later turned out to have been pushed with false budget numbers and was never paid for by Congress. Viva les bipartisans and their neverending pandering to this week’s conventional wisdom.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Ok, so the quote is old… but christ Broder is a heartless prick. I mean, look what he nodded off to. HATE CRIMES LAWS AND CRIME VICTIMS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS! I mean, I’m sorry he has to be bored with people who have violence directed at them, oh wait, I’m not.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I’d like to extend Broder’s thesis by adding that any legislation will be improved by also receiving the input and approval of the People’s Republic of China, since the PRC’s favorability rating among Americans is comparable to or even higher than that of congressional Republicans. And seeing as most Americans aren’t certain capitalism is better than socialism, we might as well throw in the Socialist Party USA as well, just to be safe.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I’d like to see Brooks really defend how the stimulus bill was “improved” by bipartisanship.
Do you want pigs to fly out of his ass too?
July 5th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Further to the Yogi-esque typo, I’d like to advance the rumor that Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman have been propping up Broder’s corpse for a number of years and emailing in his columns from a beach house in Florida. McCarthy and Silverman: boyishly handsome but not particularly wonkish.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
No, no, only Democratic bills have to be bipartisan – with Republicans partisan bills show “leadership.”
July 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Personally, I’m not sure why so many people who find policy so dull are in the field of political journalism.
Since they can get away with it, it seems to me like an awesome job for the lazy.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
In this case the Yglesias typo turns the final line into a withering insinuation that DB doesn’t even write his own columns.
I’m sorry, I’m not seeing the typo. Is there anyone here who seriously believes that most syndicated columnists write an entire column twice a week? Just like every Senator writes his or her own floor speeches? And Terri Gross does all her own research?
None of them helped by the multitude of “personal assistants” and “contributing editors” and “production consultants?”
Broder’s a fucking brand, and a terrible one.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Journalists are simply not bright people. Once that is acknowledged, much becomes easier to understand.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Dean Womer was smarter and more self aware.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:20 am
You know what I find boring? At the end of sports events that I didn’t pay attention to, ESPN shows the post game interviews with the winning and losing coaches and players. They go on and on about the first quarter, and the last quarter, and the key plays.
You know what that tells me? That tell me that I shouldn’t be a sports reporter covering that game!
You’d think Washington reporters would have figured out they picked the wrong job. But no, they are like the general sports reporters who tell us how boring soccer is.
Please. Get a job you might actually have an aptitude for.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Not that it requires mentioning that Broder is an ill-informed ass, but this is pretty straightforward analysis that he gets badly wrong.
If you need to persuade 1 or 2 more Republican votes to come over on a bill, you’re probably compromising the heck out of your bill to get it done. But that’s probably pork or kickbacks to supporters so it’s almost certainly making the bill worse. That is where we are with 99% of what Congress is doing right now.
On the other hand, if there is an issue that just happens to have bipartisan support, you have a pretty good chance of getting a really good bill passed. Since you have votes from both sides of the aisle, you can expect 60%+ of the vote and you don’t have to bargain with any given representative. But that’s not something the ruling party can arrange. If the opposition just doesn’t have any sane ideas whatsoever, you’re not going to get any bills like this. That’s just life. I’m not even sure the Dems could propose a tax cut and get bipartisan support right now.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Matt,
I think Broder may have been referring to Cass Sunstein’s book Why Societies Need Dissent, a book about how supermajorities tend to overreach. It’s actually a very good book.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Love the sarcastic scare quotes on “scholars”!
This is why “serious” Beltway swells are so honked that Al Franken is coming to Washington. Humor is powerful. The unwashed crowd loves it. It makes us feel good. It clarifies. And most importantly, skill with true humor is most often possessed by a person good enough and smart enough to also have . . . empathy and compassion. In Al Franken’s hands, humor will be a refining fire.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
And Terri Gross does all her own research?
If memory serves me right, at least some of Fresh Air’s support staff receives credit at the end of every show.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
[...] 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment This weekend there was a lot of blog-space expended over David Broder’s most recent column in the Washington Post, in which the [...]
July 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“…but it seems to me that people who aren’t interested in policy debates should be in some other line of work rather than writing columns for David Broder.”
Matt, are you saying that Broder has other people drfating his columns? That’s what you seem to clearly be saying, but sometimes you do make those odd errors of wording. On the other hand, this is still standing, so…?
July 6th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“…writing columns for David Broder.”
Note to the newly economy-conscious Fred Hiatt:
Cut out the middle man, save a pile.
Gary @47,
I think Matt might be saying that any half-competent formulaic parodist could produce unending faithful Broderism for a fraction of its current cost. Then again …