National Journal
 
The Lost Middle Ground
Bipartisanship is now studied as a relic of a bygone era, much  the way 
paleontologists pore over dinosaur bones.
by _Charlie Cook_ (mailto:[email protected])  
Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009
Recently, I had the honor of delivering the inaugural lecture at the Joe D. 
 Waggonner Center for Bipartisan Politics and Public Policy at Louisiana 
Tech  University. The center is named after a conservative Democrat from 
northern  Louisiana who served in the House for 18 years, from 1961 to 1979, 
and 
sat on  the Ways and Means Committee. 
The bipartisanship common in Waggonner's day is now studied as a relic of a 
 bygone era, almost the way archaeologists and paleontologists pore over 
ancient  remains or dinosaur bones. That's a sad sign of how much things have 
changed or,  to put it more accurately, deteriorated. 
Neither party is solely to blame for the loss of this lubricating agent,  
which helped the legislative machinery function. Every time Democrats picked 
off  a liberal or moderate Republican lawmaker in the Northeast or Midwest, 
every  time Republicans picked off a conservative or moderate Democrat in 
the South or  some rural district in the Midwest, and every time members of 
Congress unwilling  to march in lockstep with their party finally opted just 
to retire, the change  chipped away at bipartisanship. 
Americans seem to sense this: A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal  poll 
found that 22 percent of respondents blame Republicans for the partisanship  in 
Washington these days and 15 percent blame Democrats, but a whopping 61  
percent say that the parties are equally unwilling to compromise and try to 
find  a middle ground. 
When I first came to Washington in September 1972, Congress abounded with  
conservative and moderate Democrats, as well as liberal and moderate  
Republicans. These lawmakers provided the ballast that prevented their parties  
from going to extremes. They kept the Democrats from driving into the ditch on 
 the left and steered Republicans away from the one on the right. 
Certainly, some Democrats did not appreciate Waggonner's close friendship  
with President Nixon. Indeed, the Bayou State lawmaker was dubbed "President 
 Nixon's favorite Democrat." But he was a force to be reckoned with. 
These are tough times to play key roles, as Senate Finance Committee 
Chairman  Max Baucus, D-Mont., can surely attest. I wonder whether even some of 
the  Finance panel's greatest chairmen -- Democrats Russell Long and Lloyd 
Bentsen,  for example, or Republican Bob Dole -- would find it impossible to 
excel in this  poisonous environment. 
Talking with a conservative House Democrat from the South recently, I  
commented that it must be horrible to go home and get beaten about the head and 
 
shoulders by angry constituents. He added, "And then come back here and get 
 beaten up in my own caucus." His remark reminded me of hearing a moderate  
Republican senator talk last year of being somewhat ostracized at a Tuesday 
 Conference lunch after breaking ranks on a vote. 
Some analysts have long embraced campaign finance reform as the cure-all 
for  so many of our nation's political ills. But an equal or better case could 
be  made for redistricting reform, for removing partisan politics from the 
drawing  of congressional district lines -- as Iowa has done. That 
transformation  wouldn't solve every problem, but a process that resulted in 
more 
lawmakers  being attuned to swing voters would temper both parties in the 
House. 
Redistricting reform might well have an indirect impact on the Senate, 
where  much of the enmity is the result of extremely partisan House members 
becoming  senators and bringing their hard-edged, take-no-prisoners behavior 
with  them. 
The statistics are clear: There is more straight-ticket voting now than in  
the past. Few voters seem to value electing a candidate with the 
willingness and  temperament to reach across the aisle. When President George 
W. 
Bush's policies  and politics became unpopular, moderate-to-liberal Republicans 
were the ones who  paid the highest price at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008. 
Likewise, if President Obama or congressional Democrats are out of favor in 
 November 2010, conservative-to-moderate Democrats will lose in far greater 
 numbers than their liberal colleagues. And the cycle of hyperpartisanship 
will  continue.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to