"Gridlock, Compromise or Continued Partisanship"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Gridlock, Compromise or Continued Partisanship?”

November 3, 2010

Generally accepted wisdom this morning suggests a Republican victory in the House and a pick up of six or more seats in the Senate will lead to gridlock. Perhaps it will. A combination of Presidential intransigence and Republican hubris are given as the reasons for stalemate. President Obama, in 2008, ran on a platform of post-partisanship, but as President he let ideology take center stage, creating division and resentment. Partisanship was the result; partisanship made more intense because of the economy. While we have two political parties providing the electorate a choice, most people’s preference is for programs that combine elements of both platforms. Regardless, when one party wins decisively, as the Democrats did in 2008, there is a tendency to accept victory as mandate. Hubris and arrogance, unfortunately, too often accompany victory, disallowing a move toward the center. In an infamous January 23rd 2009 meeting, newly elected Barack Obama told Virginia Republican Representative, Eric Cantor, “I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.”

This past election risks some of the same elements. While Democrats maintain control of the Senate, Republican pick-up in the House, with at least sixty seats, stands to be the largest midterm pick-up for either party since 1938, and the largest increase during a Presidential cycle since 1948. In the early hours, attempts at reconciliation were made, with President Obama calling Representative John Boehner just after midnight to congratulate him and with John Boehner exhorting his followers: “This is not a time to celebrate.” Jobs and the deficit pose major obstacles.

The Country is a complex place with hundreds of nationalities and millions of people with myriad opinions. It may in fact be a “center-right” country. I don’t know, but when one wins the Presidency with 52% of the vote, as Mr. Obama did in 2008, it was billed as a landslide; however, the President and the members of the dominant party should not have forgotten that 46% of the people voted for the other team. (Two percent voted for third parties.)

They should also consider Tony Blair’s admonition that it is easier to criticize than to govern, advice House Republicans must now keep in mind. They represent all the people, not just those from whom they received a vote. It is difficult to draw conclusions based on midterm elections. In 1940, two years after Republicans picked up 80 seats, Franklin Roosevelt won a third term. In 1984, two years after Democrats gained 27 seats, President Reagan won a second term. In 1996, two years after Republicans gained 54 House seats, Bill Clinton a won a second term. However, in years such as 1930, 1966 and 1974, House pick-ups were a precursor of a change in administration. The future, as the song goes, is not ours to see.

Gridlock describes a situation in which nothing gets done. Gridlock, or obstructionism, can be positive if the alternative is highly partisan legislation, but the route preferred by most people is one of reconciliation based on compromise. Partisanship is usually a consequence of one party’s domination, led by ideological leaders. Partisanship is divisive and can feed on itself, intensifying as the baton gets passed back and forth, creating an equal and opposing response, as leadership changes. You shove me; I’ll shove you. Of course, a feuding, paralyzed government would combine the worst attributes of both characteristics.

All may not be lost, however. Benedict Carey writing in yesterday’s Science Section of the New York Times sees some reason for optimism – that “subtle psychological factors will be pushing Democrats and Republicans in an unexpected direction – toward engagement instead of name-calling and nastiness.” Campaigns tend to highlight differences, as politicians generally speak to those of like-mind, and that’s what the cameras record – partisan politicians speaking to those sympathetic to their cause. Televised campaign speeches are staged events, showing ordinary people standing behind the speaker, smiling and nodding like puppets on a string. “The world’s a stage”, Shakespeare wrote; that is never more true than in televised campaign snippets.

In large part this election, at $2 billion the most expensive ever for a midterm, was a repudiation of the President’s policies. This President campaigned heavily in the last two or three weeks, making a dozen trips to Ohio. It did little good. The election was not a vindication of his policies. Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and quoted in today’s New York Times gets it wrong: “Voters sent a message that change has not happened fast enough.” If that becomes the takeaway for the President and his leaders, then gridlock will be the result. On the other hand, if the President recognizes that ideology should take a back seat to pragmatic solutions embraced by the people and he shows a willingness to bend and listen, as President Clinton did in 1994, partisanship will wither and compromise will result. The people will be the beneficiary.

Benedict Carey goes on: “One reason sworn enemies may soften after the campaigning is over and they’re seated face to face is that conversation subconsciously synchronizes people physically – and to some extent mentally.” Let us hope he is correct.