Sharply Divided or Evenly Balanced?

First Quarter 2001

Can George W. Bush lead a divided Congress? Will the Democrats let him lead? What about recalcitrant Republicans? Or should we not speak of Congress being divided. Perhaps it is simply evenly balanced. Given the 50-50 split in the Senate, only a slight edge for Republicans in the House, and a president who did not win a majority of the popular vote, many have called for bipartisanship in this new era. Does that make sense?

The word "bipartisan" refers either to cooperation between two parties or to action that rises above partisan divisions. Candidates run for office as partisans, but winners enter Congress or the presidency as government office-holders with responsibility to govern for the well-being of the whole country. The challenge the new president and Congress face, then, is not so much to become bipartisan but to find agreements as officeholders that will produce good public policy. Legislative action should not be about partisans cutting deals so both parties can win, but for public officeholders to govern justly for the good of the governed. Is that possible?

There are two important questions here. First, did a greater number of publicly minded Republicans and Democrats win election to Congress in November 2000 compared to November 1998 or 1996? If so, then it may be possible for them, in cooperation with a publicly minded president, to find agreement on many pieces of greater number of partisan extremists on the left and right were elected in November, then the almost even split in the House and the Senate will probably mean continuing gridlock and resistance to cooperation.

The second question is this: can President Bush convince more than 50 percent of Congress that the kind of bills he is willing to sign into law will be good for the country? Of course, for constructive negotiation to work, he and Members of Congress have to start somewhere, with definite proposals about policy and not just with a general willingness to cooperate. Therefore, the president needs to lead. He should put forth clear and coherent proposals and work to build a consensus around them. If he finds that there are too many extremists who have no interest show why "bipartisanship" is a bad word in such a context. The country can then judge the quality of both his leadership and that of Congress and express judgment at the polls in 2002 and 2004.

Theodore J. Lowi said in a recent column (The New York Times, 12/3/00), that bipartisanship today "would be a cure worse than our disease. It would extend and validate what had . . . become a blurring of political distinctions as both parties shrank from taking political risks to uphold their historic principles." To "restore the vigor of American national politics," said Lowi, we need the "virtual opposite of bipartisanship." However small its advantage, the Republicans should convey the "duty of office" and let the Democrats convey the "privilege of opposition."

Lowi is probably mistaken to believe that today's Republicans and Democrats even know what "their historic principles" are. But he is right that those who hold the reigns of government should act with the conviction and authority of their office. That may mean wide, bipartisan agreement on some bills and none on others. But Bush should lead and let the chips fall where they may. The way to break gridlock is to exercise leadership in office.

In the pages that follow, we indicate some of the directions in which we believe the president and Congress should move.

—The Editor