Still Hyper-Partisan

I have already said that I am growing tired of the hyper-partisanship. Unfortunately, I am not sure who to blame, whether it is actually more than usual and whether there is really any way around it. First, let's start with who to blame.

You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.

While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."

I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.

I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.

This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.

On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.

Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.