Monopartisan

As the Democrats near 60 votes in the Senate and a solid majority in the House, one is tempted to ask, how much of a majority would one need to no longer be compelled to compromise with the opposition.

Institutionally, the Democrats only compulsion for compromise at this point is getting that 60th vote in the Senate (the stupidity of the filibuster rule being the subject of a different post). Yet imagine the Democrats had a few more Senators so they could safely expect to pass anything they desire…given the conventional wisdom, it would still be expected that they would be “bipartisan” when considering actions. How about if they got up to 80% in both chambers? Would they still need to get a few opposition votes to feel validated? At what point do you control enough of the power, and by virtue of a democratic system, popular support, that you can act without consideration of the opposition?

I’ve been a vocal supporter of postpartisan rhetoric, but it is a very specific brand of “bipartisanship” that I endorse. To me, the postpartisan spirit is not constantly cowering to the opposition party interests, sacrificing principles and good policy in the name of “compromise” or getting token support from the opposition. Postpartisanship to me is a question of treating your opposition with respect (even if they don’t deserve it) and considering their views, even if you don’t ultimately change your own, because sometimes, they might actually say something important. It is also being creative in finding ways, when possible, to satisfy principles on both sides within good policy, because not all policy interests of Democrats and Republicans are mutually exclusive.

I think Obama clearly shows respect and consideration and attempts to seek shared values. This is why I was so supportive of him back when he was still an underdog for the nomination. The question to be answered in the next month or two, is whether he falls for the bad type of postpartisanship as well, the kind that will get in the way of putting this country on a better path.

For a bit of perspective, I’d like to point out that Democrats have 59% in both House and Senate. If you calculate by actual population represented, both the House and Senate numbers would move up into the low 60s due to the disproportionality of each chamber (the Senate being more disproportionate). 59-41% would be considered a landslide election for President, bringing with it a mandate for action. Why don’t we consider it the same for Congress?

Ultimately, it is a broader portion of the public, not of legislators, that one should seek to get behind initiatives. Bipartisan support need not always come from within the legislature. Republicans in Congress are both more conservative than your average Republican, they also have greater incentive to obstruct. If Obama can do enough with various pieces of legislation to reach out to more moderate, willing Republican/conservative populations and interests in the public, it would not be impossible to claim bipartisan support, even when Congress votes something in on party lines. Passing major change on 51-49 margins would be bad for civic health. But 60% seems like a pretty reasonable margin to feel comfortable about public cohesion, especially if public support exceeds that.