Colomnists' opinions

Partisanship is OK

Yes, things are rancid in Washington today. But partisanship in democracy is essential, giving Americans clear choices often tethered to real principles.

By Ross K. Baker

The figures don't lie: The number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who cross the aisle to vote with the other party is at an all-time low. Add to that the fact that congressional Democrats are more thoroughly liberal, and House and Senate Republicans more homogeneously conservative, and you come up with an ugly phenomenon known as polarization.

This is a toxic cocktail that Americans of all political stripes gag on and that President Obama has been condemning since the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched him as a national figure. Based on the smattering of GOP votes for the president's major proposals, you might rightly conclude that by their conduct, Republicans and Democrats in Congress would make Israelis and Palestinians, and Indians and Pakistanis, look like bosom buddies. Problem is, you'd be wrong.


Partisanship in a democracy is not abnormal. It is essential. It presents citizens with alternatives, and when partisan differences are sharp, those alternatives are clearer. Partisanship normally carries with it a certain amount of philosophical baggage. For a Republican to oppose Obama's proposals to reform health insurance is not evidence that he is a heartless misanthrope any more than a Democrat who favors trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts is advocating treason. Partisanship degenerates into polarization when the motives of political rivals are questioned and people on the other side of an argument are not credited with acting out of principle. And principles do matter.

Principled stands

The principled opposition to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by a faction known as the "anti-Federalists," who counted among their number eminent patriots such as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry, was based upon the fear that the new federal government would become an instrument of oppression. They lost the fight in 1788, but their struggle, in various forms, has influenced American politics more consistently than any other in the 222 years since ratification.

Most typically, the fight has been over the scope of the federal government's role in the economy, with liberals favoring a more expansive role and conservatives a more limited one. And when party and ideology align as closely as they do now, it becomes a Democrat-Republican conflict.

In 2004, a determination by President Bush that the long-term finances of the Social Security system were shaky caused him to propose that workers be allowed to invest some of their contributions in the stock market. This was greeted by Democratic howls of "privatization." Democratic efforts in 2009 and this year to extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans encountered Republican accusations of overregulation and an unwarranted expansion of federal authority. The positions taken on both sides of these issues are consistent with decades of Republican and Democratic principles. The fact that political calculations influenced them does not mean that they are not principled stands.

For many citizens, these differences are seen as unbridgeable. It has led them to condemn Congress as decrepit and dysfunctional. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., retires in disgust from what he regards as a place of endless acrimony. Others, however, do not choose to flee in dismay because they know that every day, Democrats and Republicans sit down and manage to work together and do not habitually question the motives of those with whom they disagree.

Evidence of this is more noticeable in the Senate than in the House because of the fundamental differences between the chambers.

In the smaller Senate, where the looming presence of the filibuster means that any legislation with a prayer of success has to have a Democrat and a Republican as sponsors, there are hopeful signs. For example, a proposed payroll tax "holiday" for small businesses that hire the unemployed was put together by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. On the Banking Committee, Democratic Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut found a negotiating partner in Tennessee Republican Bob Corker in financial services industry reforms.

The durability of Congress

The current environment is less collegial in the House, where the majority almost always gets its way. In fact, there are even fissures among Democrats, where the tendency of the 51-member "Blue Dog" group of conservative Democrats to part company with Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become more pronounced, notably on health care reform.

For those who resolve to stand their ground in Congress, the road ahead will not be easy. Incumbents of both parties are in the cross-hairs of groups that loathe compromise and interpret any gesture of cross-party cooperation as trading with the enemy. The electorate in general is sullen. And it's demoralizing to serve in an institution that is, according to polls, reviled by four of five Americans.

Institutions, even essential ones such as Congress, are easy to abuse, and their members can invite derision. But a great deal of the confidence the United States enjoys in most of the world comes from the durability of these institutions and their ability to resolve differences. Right now, that ability is under assault, but it is certainly not dead because, ultimately, it is the interest of Democrats and Republicans alike not to face the voters in November barren of accomplishments. On that all can agree.

Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

(Illustration by Sam Ward, USA TODAY.)

Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, February 24, 2010 in Baker, Forum commentary, Politics - Forum

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/ ... .html#more