The Speaker prefers to bargain from a position of strength: "The bigger our victories, the more bipartisanship there'll be in the congress." I think that's about right -- you see a lot of bipartisanship when one party's running scared.
« Everything's Coming Up Disraeli | Main | Pelosi: The End Could Be in Sight »
Pelosi on Partisanship
19 Jul 2008 10:44 am
Comments (22)
I'm not sure it is right.If the victories get too big then the need for bipartisanship diminishes, arrogance sets in and the losing party adopts the default position of opposing everything."Victory by just enough!" should be the Democrats battle cry.
Another advantage of larger Democratic majorities is that it becomes slightly more difficult to blame the Republican minority for Democratic leadership resistance to anything actually progressive or liberal.
Another advantage of larger Democratic majorities is that it becomes slightly more difficult to blame the Republican minority for Democratic leadership resistance to anything actually progressive or liberal.
What stops Pelosi and Co. from enforcing subpoenas now? I also wonder if anyone had the guts to ask her if impeachment was off the table because she, Jane Harman and "Jello" Jay Rockefeller were complicit torture.
Take FISA, for example! Were it not for the Democrats' victories, that bipartisan consensus might never have come about
I'm having trouble imagining a Republican saying something like that, see. When Republicans were projecting a majority -- even a tiny little this-big one -- they weren't talking about bipartisanship. They were talking about revolution.
If it's good politics to talk about bipartisanship when you're losing, it's weak politics to talk about bipartisanship when you're winning. First you win. All the way. Then -- after you've won -- you give a little back so your opponent respects you instead of hating you. That's basic Sun Tzu. Why do we not learn this?
Can we just pause a moment in awe at the utter absurdity of this post.
Having one party "running scared" can be fun (when the other party is doing the running), and it is usually well deserved, but it is not, in any way, related to bipartisanship.
In 2002-2003, it was the Democrats running scared, and not even David Broder though that represented bipartisan consensus. The term used was "steamrolled."
We expect this sort of inanity from our politicians, but Matt's a writer, and he ought at least nod in the direction of a word's actual definition.
I think that's about right -- you see a lot of bipartisanship when one party's running scared.
Huh?
Alright, I guess he's right.
I've been beating this drum for years, but the way to look at this is as the tit-for-tat strategy in iterated prisoner's dilemma: by default, you try to cooperate, but if the other player double-crosses you, you respond in kind. Simulations have shown that this is a good strategy over multiple replays of the classic prisoner's dilemma game. In effect, it gives you some chance of "teaching" the other player to cooperate, which won't happen if you always try to cooperate with the other player. In that case, the other player has an easy counter-move and you will always lose.
It's long been clear that any attempt at bipartisanship by Democrats is just seen as an opportunity to extort even more concessions. So the logical response is to forgo any bipartisanship until the Republicans are the ones to initiate it. Matt's phrasing aside, I agree that any significant bipartisanship has to be from a position of strength.
That landslide of election of 2006 really set off an era of bipartisanship didn't it and set the fear running through the Republican caucus?
Now instead of legislation passing by solely Republican support, we get legislation where all the Republicans support it and they peel off 20 Democrats.
Strength through power baby!
Alright, I guess he's right.
But in a "Mwa ha ha ha!" kind of way.
Well of course. When the people want a lot of Democratic stuff, they vote for more Democrats, and frightened Republican politicians will try to survive by visibly getting along with Democrats.
That landslide of election of 2006
I think the subject is American politics.
True, when "the people" keep agreeing with GOP leadership that economic problems are all in their head, that endless war is just the price you pay for being top dog, that health care is for people who can afford to pay for it, and that your interests are the same as those of the super-rich, since you too can be super-rich given the right series of unlikely events, most of which have already failed to happen...
I guess until that day, we are doomed to a lasting Republican majority.
Oops, I should have said "stop" above not "keep" to make it fit with the last sentence.
Exactly! As long as the minority can stonewall action (backed by a Presidential veto threat or actual veto), the GOP will not be bi-partisan.
When they will know they will lose by hardball oppostion, then they begin to negotiate to get something they want in legislation.
Another way of saying this same thing is to observe that very closely split party membership in the house or senate is a formula for stalemate. Now if the electorate could remember this, they'd get more bi-partisan outcomes than by trying to balance and mute the will of the majority.
In a democracy, the majority must be permitted to rule, or the democratic will not be carried out.
A significant Democratic majority didn't stop Gingrich and company in the 1990s, and there's no sign that Republican resolve is any less now. The size of the majority matters not at all when the minority is determined to have its way at all costs, and actually means it about "all costs".
If it's good politics to talk about bipartisanship when you're losing, it's weak politics to talk about bipartisanship when you're winning. First you win. All the way. Then -- after you've won -- you give a little back so your opponent respects you instead of hating you. That's basic Sun Tzu. Why do we not learn this?
That's very, very true. But that's war and this is politics --where Sun Tzu takes a back seat to Machiavelli.
If part of winning is appearing that the result of your win is not unrestrained, then Pelosi's rhetoric becomes clear. You triumph in electoral politics by appealing to the bleachers. Americans have a foul taste in their mouths from the last several years of undivided government. They're gun-shy about one-party rule. So if the object is to win big, but to present that win as a negotiable, reasoned majority, I'd give Pelosi full marks.
But you're right on the merits. First, win. All the way. The rest is window dressing.
She's right, there's been tons of bipartisanship with the Democrats in the majority and running scared.
Bruce, I'm not sure what your point is--- Gingrich came to his height of prominence when he eradicated the Democratic Majority at the start of the 1990s, rather than unrelenting determination in the minority.
Never mind that their majority in the House was never, ever as large as the current one Pelosi enjoys...
Maybe it will even improve the Congressional approval rating.
Comments closed August 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
you see a lot of bipartisanship when one party's running scared.
Following which logic, Stalin's Russia of the 1930's was the most bipartisan place around.
Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 19, 2008 10:56 AM