The Statement

The striking thing about the Sam Nunn statement coming out of the silly unity confab is the bizarre mismatch between its action-items and its diagnosis. Here what they think is wrong with the country:

• Approval for the United States around the world has dropped to historically low levels, with only one out of four people approving of our country's actions, even in nations that are our longtime allies.
• We have eroded America's credibility and capacity to lead on urgent global and foreign policy issues, including terrrorism, nuclear profileration, climate change, and regional instabilities.
• Our budget and trade deficits are out of control. We are squandering our children's future. The ominous transfer of our national wealth has made our economy vulnerable, and our economic strength and competitiveness are both declining. Middle-income Americans are struggling to keep their homes and jobs and educate their children.
• We are not as secure as we should be. Our military is stretched thin and our nation remains vulnerabvle to catrostrophic terrorism."
• We are being held economically hostage because we have no energy policy worthy of the name.
• Our educational system is failing to prepare our children to succeed in a globalized and technological world
• Nearly 50 miillion Americans remain without health insurance, and the cost of medical care continues to spiral.
• The failures of bridges in Minnesota, and levees in New Orleans are harsh metaphors for the reckless neglect of our infrastructure.

So, okay, 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Do they demand a combination of subsidies and regulations to ensure that nobody goes without insurance? No. Instead, their takeaways:

• Clear descriptions of how they would establish a government of national unity
• specific strategies for reducing polarization and reaching bipartisan consensus
• plans to go beyond tokenism to appoint a truly bipartisan cabinet with critical posts held by the most qualified people available regardless of political affiliation
• proposals for bipartisan executive and legislative policy groups in critical areas such as national security.

But the one thing has nothing to do with the other. To really tackle climate change, for example, what you need is not "a truly bipartisan cabinet" but rather elected officials who put the national interest over the interests of oil and gas companies. Most of the problem actors here are Republicans, but some are Democrats like Mary Landrieux. Back when he was a right-wing Democratic Senator, David Boren worked slavishly to advance the interests of polluting energy firms. Now he wants us to have more bipartisanship? It's absurd.

On all of these issues, the problem isn't that people disagree about how to accomplish these things. The problem is that many politicians don't want to do this stuff.

Comments

The problem is there are too many politicians who believe in "bipartisanship" as an ideology and nothing else. Obama has gotten some good legislation passed working with Tom Coburn (earmarks) and Sam Brownback (aid to DR Congo) precisely because Coburn and Brownback are ideological. The goal was to DO something, not hold a press conference to be "bipartisan on ___".

"Bipartisanship" has come to mean splitting babies, the worst of both worlds.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 9, 2008 8:54 AM

Well, maybe you should do a reverse analysis.

Figure out what this group is likely to actually aim to implement in policy.

Then from that declare their goals.

Seems more of an evidence-based approach than a PR package to me.

Posted by El Cid | January 9, 2008 9:00 AM

Vanity '08.

Posted by Joe Scordato | January 9, 2008 9:05 AM

My political science professors often talked of "cross-party cleavages" (a term that still makes my inner 11-year-old snicker) as giving rise to third party candidacies. Like in '92, we had two major candidates who basically supported "free trade." In '92, voters usually aligned with either major party with strong "protectionist" sentiments went to Perot, unless they were Republicans with even stronger social conservative sentiments. Those voters stayed with Bush or stayed home.

But "The Statement" doesn't offer anything that would take advantage of a cross-party cleavage. Reform Party ... Bull-Moose ... heck, even Dixiecrat, this ain't.

Posted by matthew frederick | January 9, 2008 9:06 AM

The aim is to co-opt 'change politics' for their own special brand of bullshit bipartisanship.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 9, 2008 9:34 AM

The takeaways sounds like the action items at the end of a really bad corporate meeting, maybe one that was run by the pointy haired guy.

This one is particularly delightful:

Critical posts held by the most qualified people available regardless of political affiliation

Sounds good, but I'd regard it as a central "qualification" for any Republican that they spoke or resigned or did something, anything to halt the depredations of loyal Bushies.* (Brad DeLong's "Class of" formulation is useful in this regard.) 'Cause otherwise you're in some kind of bizarre Unity Pony mode, sitting down at "the table" with people who are, you know, all in favor of torture and stealing elections and stuff.

But wait! I've got an idea! How about we use the coming election to stomp the Republican Party and drive the Conservative Movement back to Hellmouth, or wherever it got spawned?

When you've got them by the balls, the heart and head soon follow...

Posted by lambert strether | January 9, 2008 9:35 AM

Might I suggest that these guys, and their corporate backers, are not really worried about national "disunity" at all. What they are worried about is a new form of national unity that appears to be assembling itself at a more populist level. Just as we saw with that Stanley Foundation pap that Matt posted yesterday, this is another example of the Democratic and Republican auxiliaries of the corporatist ruling class circling the wagons to defend the old order against the possibility of progressive intervention.

The disconnect between the insightful and accurate top list of bullet points and the bottom list of bulleted solutions is, as Matt suggests, comical. The fusion is an attempted piece of sales job legerdemain aimed at using the former to sell the latter. They might as well have said, "Worried about your health? Then switch to a diet of new Krispy Kreme donuts, now with 25% less fat!"

Anyway, the idea that the United States of America needs to form a "national unity government" like some third world banana republic or failed state should be deeply offensive to Americans. Looking for common ground and building coalitions is always a good thing. But the notion that this requires an extraordinary rupture with our democratic traditions, and a government hammered together by power brokers, is stupid. If voters are really crying out for national unity, and they very well may be, the parties will quickly realize this on their own. Let each party come forward with its own version of a national unity agenda, and let the voters then choose between them. That's the democratic way of doing things.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 9, 2008 9:38 AM

The bottom set of bullet-points is written in the usual sort of say-nothing corporatese familiar to every PowerPointer in the land. Stuff like this:

o Our agenda is to set up a task force to create an agenda.

o Our description of the problem is that there is a pressing need to write a description of the problem.

o Our proposal is that we come forward with a proposal.

o Our strategic plan is that someone need to come up with a strategic plan.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 9, 2008 9:43 AM

Oh, if only the terrorists would attack again. Then we could get some unity going!

...or maybe someone could foment WWIII, that'd probably work too. Please, somebody, do something! Think of the unity!

Posted by DMonteith | January 9, 2008 9:48 AM

Man, have these people been in a coma since 1994?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 9, 2008 10:01 AM

The reality on the ground is that you need 60+ votes to get anything passed in the Senate. Unless the democrats do really well and win a lot more senate seats (which is looking okay right now), bi-partisanship will HAVE to do. Furthermore, there isn't even that much unity among the democrat senators, the democrats might need a 66+ majority to get a major part of the their agenda done.

Finding common ground might mean actually getting something done. I'll admit to a powerpoint-induced ennui looking at the sam nunn report.

Posted by mike c | January 9, 2008 10:10 AM

"To really tackle climate change, for example, what you need is not "a truly bipartisan cabinet" but rather elected officials who put the national interest over the interests of oil and gas companies."

And you also need elected officials who stop pandering to the publics' desire for low fuel prices. People will conserve energy when fuel prices make fuel worth conserving.

Posted by kafka | January 9, 2008 10:19 AM

Dumb report. But...

"How about we use the coming election to stomp the Republican Party and drive the Conservative Movement back to Hellmouth, or wherever it got spawned?
When you've got them by the balls, the heart and head soon follow..."

I see lots of crap like this above. This is DeLayism, Rovism. This is defining the business of government as the extermination of the other party. You get all kinds of BS as a result of this policy. We got it from the Bushes and we'll get more from the democrats, if they follow this model.

I believe there are a significant number of republicans who don't like Bush policies and only hold together with the republican leadership because they have no where else to go. if you have a democratic administration willing to actually put good governence above party politics, and this is recognized and supported by their constituents, then you give the reasonable republicans a safe place to go and maybe you get decent policy. I would settle for the same old crappy policy if I didn't have to watch the moronic partisan machinations, hear all the stupid things that people have to say when they are consumed in partisan warfare.

Besides all that, it's retarded to think that you can "drive the Conservative Movement back to Hellmouth." That's a "we-will-be-greated-with-flowers," a "we-can-push-through-to-moscow-before-winter" type of idea. Retarded.

Posted by cw | January 9, 2008 10:30 AM

There might have been a time for a "unity" government right around 9/12/01. The other side didn't seem to be very receptive to the idea though.

Posted by skeptic | January 9, 2008 10:50 AM

There was actually some (muted) talk of a unity government in January of 2001 in the aftermath of the 2000 election disaster--that Bush might reach out to the Democratic side to heal the nation all that good stuff. The idea is pretty comical now. Gore almost certainly would have done something like this, but Bush?

cw, you can take your concern trolling and stick it in the orifice of your choice. If "partisan machinations" bother you more than the disastrous state our nation has been brought to then you should really rethink your priorities.

The conservative movement in this country has been so hyper-partisan these past 20 years that now is not the time to bring everyone into the tent and sing kumbya. The Democrats have met them halfway so many times that the center is about 20 miles to the right. When Democrats play nice they get killed. It's past time for Democrats to stand proudly for what they believe in and fight with all their strength to make it happen and, not incidentally, move the political center of this country back to the left.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 9, 2008 11:38 AM

These are greedhogs who worry that their control over policy may be in danger, regardless of who wins the Democratic primary. Bipartisanship is their fallback position to preserve their control.

Posted by Rich | January 9, 2008 12:05 PM

I love that term concern trolling.

Anyway... You say:

"The conservative movement in this country has been so hyper-partisan these past 20 years that now is not the time to bring everyone into the tent and sing kumbya."

Hyper partisan is bad, right? You don't like the tactics of the right, right? Our country is in a mess, right? So let's emulate the right and become hyper-partisan, the results have been great.

And then you say:

"The Democrats have met them halfway so many times that the center is about 20 miles to the right."

I agree that the democrats have been spinless, but the reason they have been spinless is becasue they are playing party politics. They are worried about getting relelected so they have to project a hawkish manner. it's all political strategy. That's what I'm talking about with political machinations. They spend all their time on political concerns and not on practical concerns.

And about the "20 miles to the right," that's ridiculous. We are arguing as nation over the right for gay people to marry, universal health care, the validity of a military occupation, carbon taxes... The only thing conservative the republicans have accomplished in the past 20 years is getting conservative judges on the supreme court, the last line of defense. In every most other ways, the politics of the citizens of this country has moved left.

Posted by cw | January 9, 2008 12:13 PM

What Dan said. It's no coincidence that the emergence of this Unity '08 nonsense coincided with the decline of Clinton and the rise of Huckabee.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | January 9, 2008 12:32 PM

I'm with Rob Mac. To paraphrase LBJ, "ye can't be worrin about soilin the carpets when duty to yer country requires a congressfull er slashed throats."

Posted by ol' one eye | January 9, 2008 12:33 PM

Critical posts held by the most qualified people available regardless of political affiliation

Why do I get the sense that their definition of "the most qualified people" means "members of our networks who think like us"?

And that "regardless of political affiliation" certainly has the unspoken qualifier of "as long as they are members of the political establishment."

What these people want is a government of technocrats presideed over by politcians who represent a very narrow slice of this country's political opinion. Talk about an arrangement designed to exclude diversity of opinion!

I'd prefer any of the current Democrat candidates and just about any of the Republicans to this bipartisan crew.

Posted by gene | January 9, 2008 12:51 PM

cw, sorry to throw around the term "concern troll." I don't usually do that and I admit that it's often not a useful term and that name-calling in generally is silly. That was beneath me.

I stand by everything else, though.

My biggest beef with the right is not their tactics, but their policies. That's where the rubber hits the road. They could be a bunch of sweet choir boys calling for the outsourcing of all federal programs and bigger tax cuts for the rich and I would still be against them. The thing about their tactics is that they've been effective.

I don't call on democrats to embrace their tactics, though. Not at all. But being partisan is not the same thing as using evil tactics. Democrats have (or should have) profound disagreements with Republicans on policy. To that end, they should be extremely partisan in the sense that they should pursue the (supposed) goals of their party.

You call Democrat spinelessness partisan, which I find pretty funny. I call it an attempt to be conciliatory and bi-partisan.

You say:

And about the "20 miles to the right," that's ridiculous. We are arguing as nation over the right for gay people to marry, universal health care, the validity of a military occupation, carbon taxes...

and that is just rich.

We may be arguing about some of these things now. But we're also arguing about whether it's OK to torture prisoners and for the Federal government to spy on citizens without a warrant and whether the president has the power to decide to ignore laws he doesn't like and whether the United States has a right to pre-emptively invade countries that we think might someday pose a threat and whether we should invade Iran and whether to "privatize" social security, and whether to make massive tax cuts to the wealthy permanent. And there are also the things we aren't even arguing about anymore--inheritance tax, gone. Privatization of government services, done. Disenfranchisement of black voters with voter-ID laws, A-OK. Abortion, harder to obtain than any time since before it was legalized and soon to be illegal in many states across the country. Oh, and not incidentally, it's OK to argue that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites.

Gimmee a break.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 9, 2008 2:05 PM

CW -- in all the things you mentioned where the US is somewhat farther to the left than the far-right Bushist agenda...If you look closer, the US is farther to the right relative to the rest of the Western democracies than it was twenty years ago.

Our health care is the most expensive and worst, our military budget is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, we're far behind in green tech and infrastructure, the dollar is worthless, and gay people have fewer rights here, and more legal barriers, than in any other Western democracy. Not to mention torture, rendition, secret prisons, secret trials,no habeus corpus, etc. So the right-wing Republican agenda really has been accomplished over the past twenty years -- and not a single Republican Senator has dissented in any meaningful way.

I hope we can find common ground with some Republican voters, but its unrealistic to think we'll ever find common ground with Republican Senators. The immigration compromise debacle (and its echo in the Republican primary campaigns) last year was the best example -- the base simply will not allow candidates to be reasonable.

Posted by Alan in SF | January 9, 2008 2:50 PM

Alan and Rob Mac make some good points about where we are now on the political spectrum as opposed to 20 years ago, but not that good.

Rob gives a long list of Bush excesses, but I don't think you can list these as rightwing accomplisments because their acceptance if far from assured and I expect much of it to be repudiated by the next election. We already rejected privitization of SS, voter ID laws are in the courts right now, and all the rest of it is just what happens when one party rules for six years. If we have a democratic president we are going to have all kinds of reversals of administrative policies, which is the source of much of your list. Bush has been a test of the american people's politcal alignment and for the most part a majority of americans rejected the Bush/Rove/Delay agenda, at least the parts they are interested in or know about. The 2006 elections were and the 2008 elections will be, proof of this.

And I'm not saying you have to compromise on things like torture and preemptive invasion, but I am saying that waging all out political war 24/7 makes for bad governence, whether it's democrats or republicans on the offensive.

Posted by cw | January 9, 2008 4:05 PM

The national interest must be placed above oil and gas companies, sure?

And also coal companies, coalminer's unions, the UAW, auto companies, and consumers?

Oh wait, now we've essentially gathered in enough people that it's no longer a special interest group, is it?

Global warming is a worldwide problem that we all have contributed to and continue to resist in various ways. If you think oil and gas companies are the only ones placing their own interests over the national interest, most of you need to take a look in the mirror. What is actually going on with the majority of people concerned about global warming is that they blame someone else and want someone else to fix it without themselves having to sacrifice anything.

Posted by Adam Herman | January 9, 2008 4:39 PM

It's pretty simple. The biggest problem in American politics is not lack of "unity". It's the Republicans, and rightwingers in general. And it's got to the point where softer-right, corporate types like Bloomberg feel dirty by association. It makes sense for them to form a corporate party that isn't tainted by the nutters, but people just won't vote for the Corporate Party, and the likes of David Broder don't get wood if what they support is out in the open.

Posted by Dr Zen | January 9, 2008 6:05 PM