INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS Bipartisan compromise Redistricting Partisan leaders Opponents' traits Big majorities Party differences Reduced partisanship ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Bipolarization · More Of The Same?

By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Nov. 30, 2007

Toward the end of a recent press conference in which two House Republican leaders replied to reporters' questions with well-worn attacks on Democrats, National Journal asked the lawmakers whether they could imagine political polarization becoming less rampant anytime soon. The mixture of defensiveness and incredulity in their replies demonstrated that the prospect of abandoning partisanship-as-usual seems a desirable -- although probably fanciful -- goal.

"We have learned a lot from being in the minority," responded Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "And if we are the majority in 2009, I think it will be more productive and less partisan." He contended that when Republicans controlled the House in early 2005, they received insufficient credit for enacting "at least a dozen major bills with [the support of] somewhere between 32 and 72 [House] Democrats." Citing class-action reform, bankruptcy reform, and the energy and highway bills, Blunt went on to note that President Bush signed all of the legislation and that "all of the appropriations bills passed one at a time. All the House work on that [was] done by the Fourth of July."

And yet, Blunt said, the House GOP's final two years in the majority somehow became known as a "Do-Nothing Congress." Blunt failed to mention that the public's dour assessment of those years might have had a good bit to do with the federal government's flawed response to Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005 and to the political self-destruction that followed for House Republicans the next month when then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas was forced to step aside after being indicted by a grand jury in Texas.

In the midst of Blunt's reply, House GOP Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida interjected, "When was the last Congress that you would characterize as having been unusually nonpartisan?" After the reporters suggested several possibilities, Putnam said he was "just curious." But when the news conference concluded, he volunteered that the cooperative "days that people long for" resulted from "an overwhelming Democratic majority" -- a circumstance unlikely to be soon repeated.

Ironically, recent defenses by congressional Democrats of their own performance in the majority during the past year echo those GOP replies. "We have passed much of our legislation, and it has been enacted with significant bipartisan support," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told a breakfast group of reporters at a downtown hotel. He ticked off a familiar litany of legislation: the minimum-wage hike, a student-loan measure, water projects, and post-9/11 recommendations to improve the nation's security.

And yet, Hoyer said, voters remain unhappy: "They are frustrated with Congress for our failure to change direction in Iraq." He added, "I am frustrated," too, at the lack of success. The party leaders' claims of bipartisan successes in two very different legislative periods are particularly interesting in light of a National Journal survey of our Congressional and Political Insiders that indicates few respondents wish their own leaders were more partisan. A far greater percentage of respondents -- especially on the Republican side -- wish the partisanship would be toned down.

"Americans are tired of partisanship," said one GOP Political Insider. Another responded, "Outside the Beltway, people are not interested in political victories; they want action on issues like health care, immigration, energy, etc." On this point, at least, Democrats generally agreed. "Voters want solutions and an end to finger-pointing," said a Democratic Political Insider. Another said, "If you want the public to once again trust our elected officials, the only way to do this is to turn down the rhetoric and turn up results."

Dismay over congressional posturing was also revealed in the Insiders' characterizations of their opponents. By majorities of more than 2-to-1, each party agreed that the other side is "trustworthy" and "principled." But even larger shares say that lawmakers in the other party are "partisan" and not "open-minded." In effect, the remarkably similar assessments indicate that Democrats and Republicans alike view the other party's members as difficult to work with.

That conclusion is consistent with another comment that Blunt made to reporters at the Capitol. Slamming Democrats' handling of the current Congress, he said, "One of the lessons to be learned here is, for this process to work you have to have a commitment to get the work done -- where a realistic goal can actually be met, instead of constantly setting unrealistic goals that don't get done."

Domestic Arms Race
The survey of the Congressional and Political Insiders reveals an acute sensitivity to the recent tumult on Capitol Hill and among the voters. A constant theme of the replies from more than 200 Insiders is that the partisanship on their side is warranted, given the excesses of the other party. "Democrats have been partisan where they had to and [were] not as bad as the Republicans were in their final years" of congressional control, said a Democratic Political Insider. Another said, "Democratic leaders are much less partisan than Bush or the prior Republican leaders."

GOP replies are a mirror image. One Insider mixed metaphors to describe the "chicken-and-egg problem" of "who will lay down arms first?" Another lamented that most people are "sick to death of the never-ending partisan byplay."

A brief review of the past three years helps to explain the mutual disdain. After his re-election in 2004, Bush proposed wide-ranging changes to Social Security and to immigration laws. But the Democrats' quick and intense opposition to the proposed changes in retirement policy dissuaded Republicans from even holding a committee vote. And when a bipartisan majority moved the immigration bill through the Senate in May 2006, the Republican-controlled House essentially ignored the measure and responded with little more than immigrant-bashing.

Tossing red meat to its base, the House's GOP majority voted repeatedly to cut taxes -- especially the estate and gift taxes for the wealthy -- even when it was clear their initiatives had no future in the Senate. And when they pushed the hot-button issue of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the July 2006 result fell 46 votes short of the required two-thirds majority for approval.

The Democratic takeover of Congress in January has resulted in similar patterns. When Nancy Pelosi became speaker, she declared that the election showed that "nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq." House Democrats, as a result, have sought repeatedly to force Bush to wind down the war. But after Bush on May 1 vetoed their plan to set a timetable for troop withdrawals, they fell 62 votes short of an override. And subsequent House proposals have encountered Republican filibusters or, in some cases, indifference in the Senate. In the view of the GOP, Democrats have staged "40 separate politically orchestrated votes in the House and Senate this year" on Iraq.

The new Democratic majorities have also been less than adroit on domestic policy measures -- with appropriations bills that remain mostly in limbo; a children's health bill whose proponents seem at least as focused on scoring political points as on making law; plus House-Senate deadlock on a seemingly essential tax measure that would avoid exposing an additional 19 million taxpayers to the bite of the alternative minimum tax. As a Republican Insider said of the Democratic majority, "Partisan politics results in zero accomplishments."

Politics, of course, inescapably is part of Congress. But when a Democratic Insider volunteered, "The whole place is partisan," the comment was not intended as praise. Based on the responses of many of the Insiders, sharp-elbow politics has overwhelmed the other roles and responsibilities of the legislative branch.

The National Journal survey also sought the Insiders' views on the attributes of lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. Even though the two parties' members often go in separate directions -- especially on major legislation -- congressional Democrats and Republicans work together closely enough that they can get a good measure of each other.

A four-part question asked them to judge whether members of the opposite party are trustworthy, open-minded, principled, and partisan. As fellow political professionals, many members of both parties showed a notable amount of respect for each other and their craft. A somewhat charitable Democrat said, "Only the very few get into this business in the first place for unprincipled reasons." Another said he trusts Republicans to "keep the promises they make." Some Republicans, too, show a grit-your-teeth respect for Democrats. "They are attempting to keep their promises, despite how problematic that might be for America's future," a Political Insider said. Another assayed, "I think they mean well."

But it requires scant digging to discover edgy or cynical aspects to their assessments. A Democratic Congressional Insider remarked, "Individual Republicans may be open-minded and principled, but their lockstep discipline on key votes prevents those positive characteristics from shining through." And a Democratic Political Insider said, "You can trust them to do exactly what the president wants them to do."

Harsh assessments flowed freely from Republicans, too. "They're not crooks, just hard-core liberals," one GOP Political Insider complained. Another said, "They aren't bad people. They are just wrong." Democrats may be principled, a GOP Insider added, but "unfortunately the principles are not well-founded in economic reality."

From both parties, the toughest characterizations typically dealt with the failure to keep an open mind. A GOP Political Insider said, "Congressional Democrats have become left-wing mouthpieces for MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos." A Democratic Political Insider said Republicans "are open-minded only to their own polls and the shrill exclamations of the right-wing activists." Another Democratic Insider criticized both parties. "Most members of Congress have ideological blinders that close their minds." A GOP Insider agreed: "Neither party is open-minded."

Some voices on each side predicted that excessive partisanship will prove detrimental to the other party. A Democratic Congressional Insider said that Republicans "would follow George Bush over a cliff like lemmings." A Republican Political Insider responded that the Democrats' downfall will result from a leadership that is "definitely too partisan" and liberal.

Some of the Insiders said that lawmakers' overall values are dispiriting. "Very few members of Congress possess a consistent set of core beliefs regarding the proper role of government," said a Republican Congressional Insider. "There's too much 'gotcha' in Washington," lamented a Democratic Political Insider.

Participating in the National Journal survey allowed some public venting of private sentiments, but the negative assessments are hardly surprising given that the job-approval ratings of Congress are in the basement, often even lower than Bush's. Even Pelosi -- in what may have been an excess of candor -- joined the self-flagellation during her November 1 press conference at the Capitol: "I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't done anything. We haven't been effective in ending the war in Iraq. And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."

Welcome aboard, Madam Speaker. That makes it virtually unanimous!