Here’s the meat of William Galston’s Wall Street Journal column:
In the past week, Joe Biden finally found his voice, summarizing his case simply and straightforwardly. As president, Mr. Biden says, he would focus his efforts on practical, achievable steps to improve people’s lives. He would work to repair America’s tattered alliances and renew its moral authority in the world. He would restore dignity and decency to the Oval Office.
Most important, Mr. Biden would do everything in his power to heal our divided country. The Republicans, he said on Monday night, are Democrats’ opponents, not their enemies. He believes that Mr. Trump has intimidated but not converted them. He will treat them with respect, as potential partners in a common enterprise. Within his own party, he has been mocked for raising the possibility that a measure of bipartisanship in still possible. No matter. As president, he would act as though it is and by so doing increase the possibility of its restoration.
Bipartisanship is essential, because little of what our country needs can be accomplished through executive orders and unilateral acts. We cannot possibly rebuild roads and bridges, or extend health insurance to all Americans, or reduce the burden of prescription drug costs, or reform the immigration system, unless Congress rediscovers the nearly lost art of legislation.
Maybe I’m just experiencing déjà vu but that sounds very reminiscent of the platform on which Barack Obama ran in 2008, only to turn his agenda over to a Congress with very different ideas.
What we really need is a national unity government. I feel safe in predicting we won’t get it.
” only to turn his agenda over to a Congress with very different ideas.”
And Republicans who said their number one priority was to make sure Obama did not get re-elected. And the Tea Party which wouldnt let Boehner come through on compromises he reach with Obama.
It’s nice to hear someone talking about bipartisanship but it isn’t happening anytime soon. Extreme partisanship is rewarded. Bipartisan efforts by an individual get punished. This is one of those things about which I am completely pessimistic. I dont see a way out of this right now. If we got attacked again I can see us unifying, but only very briefly and it would not extend into domestic politics.
Steve
Now, the Dems primary goal is to make sure Trump is not re-elected. So, how did such a narrow focus work out for the Republicans? Oh yeah, Obama got re-elected, didn’t he! Hmmmm….
Also, Boehner’s version is that Obama was the one who reneged on a tentative budgetary plan discussed between the two.
As for Biden’s talk of healing the country, that is nothing more than political balm for the masses. If he’s elected, it will be instantly converted to the usual democrat pablum of, “I won.†IOW, “it’s my way or the highway†type of compromises.
An interesting choice in Nov, is it time for an Obama restoration?
The US does not have a tradition of national unity governments or “ministry of all the talentsâ€.
Congress was dominated by the same party as the President during WW2 and Civil War.
The Presidential tickets where the VP was from a different party was failures. Andrew Johnson was impeached. John Tyler is among the worst Presidents.
“Also, Boehner’s version is that Obama was the one who reneged on a tentative budgetary plan discussed between the two.”
That is what he said at the time but after leaving office he has said it was the Tea Party which made it hard to reach agreements in general. As to the Grand Bargain it was the Gang of Six which killed it, but Boehner pretty much concedes that the Tea Party wouldn’t not have gone for it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/29/john-boehner-trump-house-republican-party-retirement-profile-feature-215741
Steve
You’re partially correct, Steve, as to why the Grand Bargain between Obama and Boehner failed. The conservative base opposed the amount of increased taxation that was proposed. However, Obama’s liberal base were also not on board with the proposed cuts to safety net and entitlement programs. Much like today it was the opposition in both parties who unraveled the deal. However, the reasons the right voiced were behind their opposition was that they did not trust the Dems to keep their end of the bargain, once the higher taxes were passed. Their hesitation was drawn from the bad taste remaining after Reagan’s deal with the Dems was then not honored by them.
Galston and many other ‘moderate’ Democrats of his persuasion always natter on about a need for ‘bipartisanship’. In the past that has traditionally been ‘elections have consequences, but here’s a couple of bones for you to chew on to stop you from yapping’. During the last couple of administrations they’ve dispensed with the bones. It’s raw naked power politics and damn the truth or the law or the good of the country or anything but acquiring power and punishing opponents without mercy. Witness the Kavanaugh confirmation and the recent impeachment. All accusations and not one shred of evidence except for what was manufactured. James Carville, bless his ol’ heart, basically admitted that the point of bareknuckle political brawling is to seize power and wield it to your benefit.
A little off topic, but still conversing about raw political power —-> how about Schumer’s very public, angry threats toward Justices Kavanaugh & Gorsch, while they are reviewing an abortion case before the US Supreme Court! When Trump merely tweeted about his opinion of partisan bias observed in the Supreme Court he encounter lots of flak, including a written rebuke by Roberts. Now, Roberts is demonstrating similar consternation over Schumer’s much more vicious attacks aimed at 2 jurists. Good for him! However, where is the MSM and their criticism?
“All accusations and not one shred of evidence except for what was manufactured. ”
They had all of there evidence they needed for the impeachment, and then Trump didnt allow key people to testify. A much better example was Merrick Garland.
“Their hesitation was drawn from the bad taste remaining after Reagan’s deal with the Dems was then not honored by them.”
Not quite the real story. They actually have the budget proposals from that time. The proposed cuts are as follows.
26 billion in defense spending
34 billion non defense
Entitlement cuts 30 billion
Other reductions 8 billion
Federal pay raise freeze 26 billion
Management savings 47 billion
Net interest savings 108 billion
Note that at least half of that is stuff Congress has zero control over. Management savings was just something they made up, not something Congress could pass a bill on. (They being Stockman and the budget people.) Weinberger refused to comply with the defense cuts. again could have frozen the federal pay, but didnt. So out of about 60 billion that Congress really had control over, 90 billion if you count pay freezes since I think they could also do that as well as POTUS, they delivered 30 billion, much, much better than what the Reagan admin came through on.
Also, google magic asterisk.
Steve