I'll Take "Pragmatism" For Any Price, Alex

Since it’s Friday and I’ve got a slow day at work, I thought I’d dive into some more serious fare once again. Over the past year or two I have been ratcheting up my interest in politics to a level it hasn’t been at since I was a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans back in 1997. However, over the past couple months I have been increasingly getting disillusioned and reminded of why I have felt so much apathy towards politics in the past. I am really disheartened by the total lack of pragmatism that exists on both sides of the aisle. This has really been brought into focus for me by seeing what has been going on with the debate over the new Child Health Insurance bill currently moving through Congress. Just as a quick recap, this bill is a reauthorization of a program that already exists called SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) which has the goal of ensuring that children of poor families are still able to get health care. OK, that seems like a pretty good, practical idea that should be bipartisan. Certainly doesn’t seem like something that would trigger a huge political battle. But of course it has. The bill was introduced into the House back in February where it passed overwhelmingly 360 to 45 (28 abstaining). It passed similarly in the Senate in August by a count of 68-31-1. It was then vetoed by President Bush. I think this is a good point to also interject that this veto by Bush was the first one he has wielded in his 6 and a half years in office. The fact that he chose to do it with a bill that passed with 89% of the House vote and 69% of the Senate is surprising, to say the least. But of course, all you need is 2/3 majority to override the veto so this thing will still have no problem becoming law right? Of course not. The veto override fails with a vote of 273-156-2 (63.6%).

Not surprisingly, public opinion about whether or not the veto was a good idea falls largely along party lines. People who identify with Democrats blame Bush for vetoing a bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and those who identify with Republicans point out the bill’s weaknesses and blame Democrats for not coming up with a better bill. Of course, these both miss the mark on where the real blame belongs: on everybody! Now, I have no desire to start debating the pros and cons of this bill right now because it’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make, which is outrage at the process. When the bill was voted on in the House the first time, Republicans voted in favor of it 145-45-15. When the time came to override the veto, the Republican vote changed to 44-154-2. That is a complete 180 degree turn and it’s the same bill! Why was it a good idea in February but it’s a terrible idea now? The way I see it, there are only 3 possibilities for the Congressmen that changed their minds: 1) they didn’t read it carefully enough the first time, 2) they still believe in the bill but are being loyal to the President, or 3) they decided that by opposing this bill they could gain some political traction on the Democrats. For different reasons, all of those are unacceptable and work to the detriment of the best interests of the nation. First, if they didn’t read the bill closely enough the first time they were casting an irresponsible vote. Second, backing the President when you disagree philosophically is a neglect of their Congressional duty to act as a check and balance of the executive branch. Lastly, changing your mind simply to fan a political flame fulfills all the worst stereotypes about politicians placing themselves and their party ahead of the country’s interests.

OK, so I’ve harped on the Republicans but how about the Democrats? Well, after the veto failed they passed a slightly revised bill by a count of 265-142 (65%). Guess what? That’s still short of the veto-proof number. The heads and whips of each party know exactly where they stand on each bill at almost every moment. Why in the world would you bring a bill to vote knowing full well it is going to get vetoed again and that you are short of the override? If you couldn’t change a Rep’s mind before the initial vote, what chance are you going to have when the it involves not only changing sides on an issue but also breaking ranks with their own party and going against the President? But they voted on it anyway, Bush has already vowed to veto it, and now we’ll get to see a 2-week long song and dance with lots of speeches and fanfare, with each side blaming the other for the problems, and absolutely nothing getting done at the end of it. Then it will get thrown back in the House for another revision. At that point, most likely what it will take to get it through is the addition of a lot “pork” to a few of the dissenting voters to fund some of their pet projects so that they can go back to their constituents and say “yeah I voted for that bill, because even though I didn’t like the health care aspect, it got us this new highway!” Either that, or the bill will get so watered down that in the process of removing the objectionable parts the beneficial parts will get taken out too and we’ll be left with yet another big expensive government program that doesn’t work.

Please forgive me for being naïve, but does it have to be this way? I mean, if a public company operated in this way they would face the ire of a mob of angry stockholders who would vote the board of directors out of their chairs in a heartbeat. And they wouldn’t stop to ask “well, who is it that is really clogging up the works here?” they’d just say “you guys can’t get the job done; you’re out”. So where’s the ire from us, the stockholders of the democracy? Of course there is none, because this isn’t seen as anything new. The headline “Congress Inefficient” on a newspaper would garner about the same level of interest to people as the headline “Oxygen Discovered to be Breathable.”

Whatever happened to the idea that when two sides couldn’t agree on something, they locked themselves in a room and didn’t come out till they could come up with a compromise? I realize that doesn’t work on everything (abortion comes to mind) but if you can’t do that with something as seemingly universal as “poor kids should have access to doctors too” how on in the world are you ever going to solve any real sophisticated problems (like, for instance, the war in Iraq)?

I mean, has it always been like this? I didn’t think so, and now I have Alan Greenspan to back me up. I am in the process of reading his book The Age of Turbulence (which is easily the best book I’ve read this year) and he has this to offer about partisan politics:

“The four congressional caucuses, two in each body, have shifted dramatically over the years. Each caucus, two Republican, two Democratic, used to comprise liberals, moderates, and conservatives. To be sure, the proportions differed by party, but there was rarely enough cohesion to produce overwhelming majorities for any piece of legislation in any of the four caucuses. Votes on legislation typically would be Democrats 60 percent for, 40 percent against, and Republicans 40 percent for, 60 percent against, or vice versa. Today’s congressional caucuses . . .have become either predominantly liberal (the Democrats) or conservative (the Republicans). Accordingly, legislation that used to split party votes 60 percent to 40 percent is now more likely to be 95 percent to 5 percent. Legislation has consequently become highly partisan.”

He goes on to say:

In 1974 “partisan fervor was largely set aside as the sun went down. The dinners I attended (a Washington political ritual) were invariably bipartisan. Senators and representatives from both parties would mix with administration stalwarts, the media, and the city’s social power brokers. During 2005, my last full year in government, the ritual dinners were still there, but they had become intensely partisan. On many occasions, I was the only Republican present. And at “Republican dinners” I attended, there were few, if any, Democrats.”

I think the crux of the second quote is intricately linked with the results of the first. As elected officials increasingly identify themselves as “Republican Congressmen” or “Democratic Congressman” rather than “US Congressman” it almost becomes a gang-type affiliation and the Capitol becomes the battleground for trench warfare rather than fertile ground for ideas and legislation to grow. And you can see it in the way issues are presented and debated. Rather than one side saying “well this is a pretty good bill, but there are some problems we need to iron out” you end up with one side saying “this is a horrible bill that will take the country in the absolute wrong direction.” And of course it’s easy to see what happens next. Have you ever been engaged in a debate where you didn’t care much one way or the other but the person you were talking to started spouting off exaggerations and half-truths in such a one-sided manner that you found yourself vehemently arguing for the other side and doing some of the same things? That’s what happens here, as the other side basically says “this is a wonderful bill that is critical to the country’s success and must be passed immediately.” So now, instead of the debate being framed around the tweaks that need to be made, we get to hear about the exaggerated benefits from one side and then get the problems catastrophised from the other. And, of course, lost in the shuffle is the middle ground, which also happens to contain the truth.

So, what exactly am I saying? I’m saying that it depresses me that the political debates are such in this country that I always feel as if I have to choose between two extremes. It is especially troubling because I, as well as most people, usually prefer the middle ground. I am hopeful that this age of uber-partisan politics is only a phase and that good sense will prevail in the end. Whether or not you agree with his views, Obama’s message of “the politics of hope” (meaning campaigning on the issues and not on opponent attacks) as well as his commitment to not accepting funds from lobbyists are a good start, but so far he stands largely alone amidst of sea of polarizing forces.

I spend at least 4-5 hours a month talking politics with my friend Joe. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t, but I always have respect for him and his views and I’m always more than happy to sit down and have a beer with him before, during, and/or after. I guess I’d just like to see that same kind of civility from our government. Am I asking too much?