Bipartisanship seems to have taken a drubbing in Washington since US President Barack Obama got to the White House.
Like most recent US presidents, Obama campaigned on a promise to work with his political opponents for the greater good of the country. Former president Bill Clinton said much the same thing before he was elected, and then spent his first term in a knockdown fight with then representative Newt Gingrich’s Republican majority in Congress, and his second term fighting off impeachment.
Former president George W. Bush also said that he would reach out to those who disagreed with him. He then turned into the most partisan and ideological president of modern times, egged on by vice president Dick Cheney.
Obama already appears to have gone further in the pursuit of bipartisanship than his predecessors. His selection of Republicans for key posts — including retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as — has raised a few eyebrows among his supporters. But, above all, he has tried hard to secure Republican support for his efforts to prevent the economy from disappearing into a deep recessionary hole. Only three maverick Republican senators went along with Obama’s proposals to get the plan accepted. And in the House of Representatives, the Republicans unanimously rejected every amendment, every compromise and every courtesy that he offered.
Some commentators suggest that Obama made a bad mistake. First, he promised bipartisanship, but got heavily rebuffed. Second, he and his administration were so busy trying to build consensus that they watered down some of the vital ingredients of the stimulus package, and failed to defend it robustly from Republican attack.
There may sometimes be a downside in trying to woo your opponents. When they are plainly wrong, why let them off the hook? Here we have had Republicans criticizing an increase in the US’ budget deficit after doubling the US’ national debt in the Bush presidency’s eight years. Moreover, Republicans’ belief that only tax cuts, not public spending, will delivery recovery is a sad example of blinkered ideology.
But there are more positive reasons for Obama effort at bipartisanship. In any democratic system of checks and balances, leaders usually require coalitions in order to get what they want done.
Moreover, a consensual style is good politics. Most voters — certainly swing voters, who usually decide elections — do not like partisan battles as much as some politicians and their supporters do. After all, the wise, the moderate and the floating voter do not switch on the radio to listen to archconservatives like US broadcaster Rush Limbaugh.
When things get tough in politics, as will happen in most of the world as we struggle with the impact of the global recession, every sensible government will try to hang on to the benefit of doubt. It is the most important attribute in politics. Citizens know that running a country, especially in a time like this, is tough. They are prepared to spare governments from too much criticism, if they think they are trying to do what is right for everyone. They bridle at a government that must do unpopular things and that also looks narrow and mean-spirited.
There is also a lot to be said for making political argument more civil. Former US president Ronald Reagan had a strong ideological bent. He reshaped US politics, pulling the center firmly to the right. But he did so without ever seeming to despise his opponents or disparage their intentions. Obama’s aides have confessed that he modeled his own election program on the sunny and optimistic decency of the Republican actor.
Civility in politics is not simply political confectionery. A leader who respects his or her opponents is more likely to earn respect himself than one who doubts their patriotism and resents their criticism.
One reason for the widespread respect felt for former South African president Nelson Mandela is that years of imprisonment did not embitter him. Former Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was hugely popular because he was known to cherish free speech, take seriously the views of his critics and defend their right to disagree with him. His role in establishing enduring democracy in India, despite the tensions of caste, ethnicity, religion, and regional loyalties, made him one of the towering figures of the 20th century.
So my own hope is that Obama will not be dissuaded from trying to work with his opponents, to build consensus and to deal courteously even with those whose views he may thoroughly dislike.
Personally, I do not think that those whose philosophy deplores the whole idea of government, except when it is required to bail out businesses or banks, and who purport to offer a better future by stitching together the shreds and tatters of policies that helped produce today’s economic disaster, will have much respect or support from voters. Even in Washington, there is not much to be said for being partisan, unpopular, and wrong.
Chris Patten is a former EU commissioner for external relations, British Conservative Party chairman and British governor of Hong Kong. He is now chancellor of Oxford University and a member of the British House of Lords.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS