The red flag of partisanship 

Last November, as members of the House of Representatives considered the health care reform bill, President Barack Obama made a dramatic trip to Capitol Hill. After closing down 16 blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue, a half-mile-long White House motorcade whisked the presidential entourage past cheering tourists to meet with the House Democratic Caucus.

Despite the drama, these trips rarely occur if the outcome is unknown. No sense aggravating a bunch of taxi drivers if you’re not going to win.

When he arrived before the roaring group of lawmakers, the president oozed transformational hyperbole. Even lowly House members could “make history” by passing the measure, the president apparently told his audience, according to news accounts.

But not everyone bought the narrative. “He can make history,” one moderate Democrat reportedly said after the meeting. “But I’ll be history if I vote for that thing.”

Notwithstanding those concerns, we all know how the story ended. Democratic partisans hoped enacting health care would boost the president’s and Congress’ sagging popularity, particularly with fickle independent voters that supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but have moved decidedly in the GOP’s direction this year.

The same calculus motivated the Democratic leadership’s sales pitch for stimulus legislation, cap-and-trade and the Wall Street reform bill. Legislative success produces political popularity, Democrats argue. President Bill Clinton and his party lost the majority in Congress in 1994 because they failed to pass health care, right?

Yet despite all the legislative notches carved in their belts, Democratic prospects for 2010 still look bleak. It turns out congressional productivity isn’t political alchemy after all.

Some believe it’s content, not volume, hurting the Democrats. But that argument explains only part of the problem. Other clouds contribute to Obama and his party’s dreary political state. Indeed, nagging fears about the economy also deepen voter angst.

The party in power catches the brunt of the political fallout from a bad economy, and this year, independents appear ready to take out their frustrations surrounding stubbornly high unemployment on Democrats.

But beyond policy disagreements and a languid economy, I believe a third explanation deserves consideration, particularly when it comes to that often-pivotal 10 to 15 percent of the electorate: Independents do not identify or lean toward one party or the other.

These voters, by and large, value balance. By more than a two-to-one margin, an April 2010 Resurgent Republic poll found independents favored a Republican Congress to serve as a check-and-balance on Obama compared to a Democratic Congress to help the White House pass its agenda.

So what have these voters witnessed from Washington, D.C., in the past 18 months? First, a president who promised to rise above partisanship. Second, a Democratic majority in Congress with the means to accomplish its goals without any Republican support on major issues like stimulus, cap-and-trade, health care and Wall Street reform.

Together, these two factors sowed seeds of doubt among independents.

Strong partisan behavior always aggravates voters with weak or nonexistent partisan ties. Collective decisions by the president and his party leaders in Congress to bypass Republicans during the past 18 months have contributed to a sharp decline in Democrats’ standing with independents. And as a result, there won’t be nearly as many cheerleaders in the majority party when Obama comes to call on the Hill this winter.  

This article appeared in The Weekly Standard.

About The Author

Gary Andres

Pin It

Speaking of Op Eds

More by Gary Andres

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation