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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS