Beware of bi: what do Democrats mean when they talk up 'bipartisanship'?

FOLLOWING the Democrats' failure in 2004 to defeat the president she called "incompetent" and "dangerous," minority leader Nancy Pelosi sought advice on how to end the GOP leadership's "freak show." She reportedly asked a group of marketers, "If you are number two and want to be number one, what do you do?" As recounted in the New York Times, "their suggestion ... was to 'take down' the president; it was not enough to simply kick him in the shins." The loving grandmother explained that she looked forward to restoring civility and open debate once Democrats were back in control, "but first you have to drain the swamp."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

So soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi resolved to attack and obstruct. She was rewarded by voters this November, and is now dispensing advice of her own: Republicans should be bipartisan by supporting the new majority's agenda. What she has in mind is the "bipartisanship" of the good old days, when nice Bob Michel--the longtime GOP House minority leader--led an impotent caucus that got along by going along.

Although Washington lore faults congressional Republicans for ushering in an era of poisonous partisanship, Pelosi's plan to recapture the House meant a ban on any bipartisanship. She enforced a party loyalty that had House Democrats deliver "the most unified voting record in 50 years," according to the Washington Post. In 2005, her caucus voted along strict party lines 88 percent of the time. In 1997, 51 House Democrats supported a Republican budget that significantly reduced domestic spending. Last year, there wasn't a single Democratic vote for a five-year GOP budget plan with far more modest reductions.

Veterans of Bob Michel's caucus marvel at the nostalgia for an allegedly peaceful past, when comity and cooperation reigned on Capitol Hill. "It's like someone longing for the Deep South of the 1950s, when everyone supposedly got along just fine," says one seasoned GOP aide. "They were perfectly happy, because they could do anything they wanted and we couldn't do anything about it," the aide explains. Republicans repeatedly complained about the majority's abuses that permitted committee chairmen to block popular reforms, prevented GOP amendments to bills, and stifled debate on the floor. Michel called the Democrats' modus operandi "legislating by censorship."

Republicans complained repeatedly, but saw little chance of changing the correlation of forces until Newt Gingrich came along. Gingrich had a vision that Michel couldn't imagine. When Michel announced his retirement in October 1993--after 38 conciliatory years in Congress--he said, "In the House, while we're still in the minority where I've always been, we're pulling together and making the most of our numbers. And even though I believe the prospects are excellent for our winning big in the House next year, I'm not sure it will be enough to make me the Speaker." The combative Gingrich succeeded him as minority leader--and promptly became Speaker.

The celebrated "bipartisanship" of the GOP's wilderness years was typically due to a few rogue Republicans who voted with the Democratic majority. For example, the late congressman Hamilton Fish was the principal Republican sponsor of the 1991 "bipartisan" Civil Rights Act. Fish declined to run for reelection in 1994 because of poor health, and spent his entire 25-year congressional career serving happily in the minority. He once explained that he "was better suited to the less confrontational, more pragmatic political style of a minority leader. I'm not a confrontational person, so I don't know if I would have been a more successful person as a member of the majority. I doubt it."

After twelve years in the majority, no Republican is happy to have returned to minority status, but some do see an opportunity to be bipartisan deal brokers and give Democrats the kind of cover formerly provided by GOP liberals like Representative Fish. Earlier this year, Rep. Chris Shays said, "If I'm in the minority, I'll be one of the most powerful members of Congress."

When rogue Republicans defect from their caucus, they provide the kind of "bipartisanship" celebrated by the media. The Senate's "comprehensive" immigration bill was "bipartisan" owing to a handful of Republicans who rejected any attempt to compromise with conservatives. Mike Franc of the Heritage Foundation points out that 42 Senate Democrats and ten Senate Republicans defeated every conservative amendment to immigration-reform legislation, ranging from a requirement that the border be secured before amnesty provisions and a guest-worker program are instituted to a requirement that guest workers return home when their visas expire.

In contrast, when 64 House Democrats supported the Secure Fence Act earlier this year, the vote was portrayed as the handiwork of a stubborn Republican House at odds with respectable opinion on immigration. Now the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, is reportedly interested in abandoning the construction of the 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Although the fence was supported by a 283-138 bipartisan House majority, it's a safe bet that Thompson won't be accused of a partisan assault if he kills it.

The Republicans who began drawing up lists of vulnerable newly elected Democrats within hours of seeing Election Day vote tallies are in little danger of heeding the siren song of bipartisanship, but many worry about President Bush's willingness to endorse Democratic proposals that a majority of Republicans oppose. "The concern is that he will put the 'bi' in bipartisanship," says a former leadership aide.

When Nancy Pelosi visited the "emperor with no clothes" following the elections, the New York Daily News reported that, according to a source familiar with the luncheon discussion, "he acknowledged that on many issues Democrats are more in line with the American people, and said he would like to bring the GOP more in line." In addition to Iraq, President Bush and the Democratic leaders talked about energy policy and the prospects of moving an immigration bill that includes the president's guest-worker program. Bush declared, "I believe on a lot of issues we can find common ground." And, "I understand when campaigns end, and I know when governing begins."

While the president may want to burnish his legacy on domestic issues by finding common ground with Democrats, for congressional Republicans the 2008 campaign is already underway. They have two years to rebuild their brand name. A pre-election survey of voters in twelve toss-up Republican districts, conducted by GOP pollsters, concluded, "If the war in Iraq was brought to a successful and triumphal conclusion tomorrow, the Republican brand would still be in trouble." OnMessage, Inc., found that voters in these GOP districts trusted Democrats more on fiscal issues. Democrats were credited with being more likely than Republicans to cut taxes for the middle class (42-29), to reduce the deficit (47-22), and to keep government spending under control (38-21, although here "neither" came in second at 31 percent).

The voters surveyed weren't calling for a bipartisan pact to hike taxes and boost spending. And Nancy Pelosi did not become Speaker of the House by cooperating with Republicans while they were in the majority. As she now asks Republicans to show their bipartisanship by voting for her liberal agenda, she is saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." That is counsel unworthy of any loving grandmother.