5 ms·

Are bipartisan bills a thing of the past? I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship. Just

Are bipartisan bills a thing of the past? I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship. Just wishing we weren’t so polarized…. Also wishing I better understood what interests were pushing the polity towards polarized ideologies. I’m not convinced it’s a completely organic phenomenon (rather, that there are special interests benefiting from the polarization).

nradov 5y ago
The US voting public favors bipartisanship as an abstract concept. But they don't reward bipartisanship at the ballot box.
whateveracct 5y ago
Wasn't the >$1T infrastructure bill a bipartisan effort?
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Yeah but it only passed the Senate. House leadership won't allow a vote on it until the democrat-only $3.5T bill passes.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    I wouldn't call that bet. My bet is reconciliation gets diluted to about the same spend level and they both pass.
fweespeech 5y ago
> Are bipartisan bills a thing of the past? Did you ask this question about all the partisan bills passed by the GOP when they were in power? And if so, was the answer not the same? > I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship. In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. So its political suicide for a Democrat to rely on that. Which leads to: > Just wishing we weren’t so polarized…. Also wishing I better understood what interests were pushing the polity towards polarized ideologies. I’m not convinced it’s a completely organic phenomenon (rather, that there are special interests benefiting from the polarization). Yup. Its called oligarchy and its the real government model of the US at this stage. Polarization is really just two camps of rich people fighting it out with PR/political campaigns. More polarization leads to better viewing and better base turnout. One group of rich people who think the rich should be taxed more, that climate change should be tackled, etc. And one group of rich people who want lower taxes and to obstruct the first group.
- darkerside 5y ago
  > In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. A similar phenomenon. Polls show that everybody hates Congress, but everybody likes their own congresspeople.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
InitialLastName 5y ago
> I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship Polls consistently show people favoring bipartisanship as long as it's the other side that has to compromise: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-americans-really-care-about-bipartisanship/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-americans-r...
antattack 5y ago
Now-day's, for Democrats, bipartisan = when moderates and progressives come together.
mattnewton 5y ago
Everyone says they are for bipartisanship because it sounds nice but they don't seem to vote that way, as each parties representatives have drifted somewhat away from each other. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po... We haven't had much bipartisan support for anything since before the bush years really: https://www.businessinsider.com/animation-rise-partisanship-congress-house-representatives-60-years-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/animation-rise-partisanship-... It was particularly intensified during the Obama administration where McConnell's stated intent was to pass nothing and make him a one term president, but he hardly invented the effect.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Everyone says they are for bipartisanship Sure, and they mean it. Its just that everyone means “both parties voting for my preferences” when they say “bipartisanship”.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Honestly I was personally shocked they got the first bipartisan cars & bridges bill through with Republican votes. That was a big one for bipartisanship, been like 20 years of presidents talked about it. Infrastructure week is here!!! But beyond that I don't know. McConnell explicitly said he will not allow Republican votes on the debt ceiling if Dems push for this bill. That is INSANE imho. Even that thread is damaging. I don't know if there is a solution given the huge differences that are growing. From my perspective there is a not only a refusal to negotiate in good faith on the right but active attacks on Democracy. It's hard when a 30% of their constituents live in an alternate reality compared to the other 50+%. Politicians are attacking democracy and pushing dangerous racist/gender attacking social policy in their attempts to replace Trump (see DeSantis and Abbott). A consequence of two party primary politics and the make up of the Senate. Leaders (on both sides) appease the small % that vote in a primary. I view myself as a center left progressive (very left on climate, right on foreign policy like China) and the behavior of Republicans just seems completely incompatible with bipartisan governance or the absolute dire needs we have to at least try to address. even on social issues, check out comments from last thread I can't believe we're still arguing over some of the beliefs that white men on this board still hold. And it seems the others feel so attacked and fragile that they lash out. They feel the same about me/us. I guess one way to view bipartisanship is when Rs get control back they will repeal the tax increases, while the popular expansion of child tax credits, medicare stay in place. Which just make it even more unaffordable. A kind of 'balance' but a dangerous one.
- imtringued 5y ago
  This reminds me how in Germany the "government" parties CDU and SPD kept this balanced budget meme going for a decade by cutting spending on infrastructure and now that we've made the sacrifice it's time for Germany to go into debt... for income tax decreases for the wealthy... FDP's proposal feels like a big joke. 88 billion for absolutely nothing. https://twitter.com/AnnaGallinaHH/status/1432079457905483779/photo/1 https://twitter.com/AnnaGallinaHH/status/1432079457905483779... https://twitter.com/boavista_social/status/1424628623496126468/photo/1 https://twitter.com/boavista_social/status/14246286234961264... Whenever a government goes into debt to finance infrastructure the bean counters will tell you, no, you can't waste money like that. That infrastructure will only last 20-30 years. Future generations will be burdened by the roads, public transportation and clean energy infrastructure we have built for them. The truth is that when you are doing something like an infrastructure investment, the people that are making sacrifices are people who could have worked on something more productive. Companies don't seem to care. If they are lacking labor they simply set up business in Asia. If the infrastructure bill hires unemployed people then the present net burden could even be negative.
elihu 5y ago
Bipartisan bills still happen, but when it comes to climate change or improving our health care system or reforming election laws or changing the tax code so the extremely wealthy pay effective rates that are in line with what the middle class or moderately wealthy pay, there just aren't any Republican votes for those things. Bipartisanship is a nice idea, but if two parties are ideologically opposed then sometimes no compromise is possible. The options in the U.S. to move legislation then become: use budget reconciliation and 50 votes plus the vice president, get rid of (or seriously reform) the filibuster, or wait for a 60-vote Senate supermajority. The latter happened in 2009 and lasted for a couple of weeks (it took a long time for Al Franken to be seated, and then Ten Kennedy died), and may never happen again in our lifetimes.
gaze 5y ago
Any time there was bipartisan consensus, both sides agreed to do truly awful things -- e.g. Iraq war. I don't miss "reach across the aisle" one bit. Although, now the dems are largely playing Kayfabe so eh. Lose/lose.

nradov 5y ago

The US voting public favors bipartisanship as an abstract concept. But they don't reward bipartisanship at the ballot box.

whateveracct 5y ago

Wasn't the >$1T infrastructure bill a bipartisan effort?

bpodgursky 5y ago
Yeah but it only passed the Senate. House leadership won't allow a vote on it until the democrat-only $3.5T bill passes.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  I wouldn't call that bet. My bet is reconciliation gets diluted to about the same spend level and they both pass.

fweespeech 5y ago

> Are bipartisan bills a thing of the past? Did you ask this question about all the partisan bills passed by the GOP when they were in power? And if so, was the answer not the same? > I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship. In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. So its political suicide for a Democrat to rely on that. Which leads to: > Just wishing we weren’t so polarized…. Also wishing I better understood what interests were pushing the polity towards polarized ideologies. I’m not convinced it’s a completely organic phenomenon (rather, that there are special interests benefiting from the polarization). Yup. Its called oligarchy and its the real government model of the US at this stage. Polarization is really just two camps of rich people fighting it out with PR/political campaigns. More polarization leads to better viewing and better base turnout. One group of rich people who think the rich should be taxed more, that climate change should be tackled, etc. And one group of rich people who want lower taxes and to obstruct the first group.

darkerside 5y ago
> In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. A similar phenomenon. Polls show that everybody hates Congress, but everybody likes their own congresspeople.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

InitialLastName 5y ago

> I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship Polls consistently show people favoring bipartisanship as long as it's the other side that has to compromise: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-americans-really-care-about-bipartisanship/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-americans-r...

antattack 5y ago

Now-day's, for Democrats, bipartisan = when moderates and progressives come together.

mattnewton 5y ago

Everyone says they are for bipartisanship because it sounds nice but they don't seem to vote that way, as each parties representatives have drifted somewhat away from each other. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po... We haven't had much bipartisan support for anything since before the bush years really: https://www.businessinsider.com/animation-rise-partisanship-congress-house-representatives-60-years-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/animation-rise-partisanship-... It was particularly intensified during the Obama administration where McConnell's stated intent was to pass nothing and make him a one term president, but he hardly invented the effect.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Everyone says they are for bipartisanship Sure, and they mean it. Its just that everyone means “both parties voting for my preferences” when they say “bipartisanship”.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Honestly I was personally shocked they got the first bipartisan cars & bridges bill through with Republican votes. That was a big one for bipartisanship, been like 20 years of presidents talked about it. Infrastructure week is here!!! But beyond that I don't know. McConnell explicitly said he will not allow Republican votes on the debt ceiling if Dems push for this bill. That is INSANE imho. Even that thread is damaging. I don't know if there is a solution given the huge differences that are growing. From my perspective there is a not only a refusal to negotiate in good faith on the right but active attacks on Democracy. It's hard when a 30% of their constituents live in an alternate reality compared to the other 50+%. Politicians are attacking democracy and pushing dangerous racist/gender attacking social policy in their attempts to replace Trump (see DeSantis and Abbott). A consequence of two party primary politics and the make up of the Senate. Leaders (on both sides) appease the small % that vote in a primary. I view myself as a center left progressive (very left on climate, right on foreign policy like China) and the behavior of Republicans just seems completely incompatible with bipartisan governance or the absolute dire needs we have to at least try to address. even on social issues, check out comments from last thread I can't believe we're still arguing over some of the beliefs that white men on this board still hold. And it seems the others feel so attacked and fragile that they lash out. They feel the same about me/us. I guess one way to view bipartisanship is when Rs get control back they will repeal the tax increases, while the popular expansion of child tax credits, medicare stay in place. Which just make it even more unaffordable. A kind of 'balance' but a dangerous one.

imtringued 5y ago
This reminds me how in Germany the "government" parties CDU and SPD kept this balanced budget meme going for a decade by cutting spending on infrastructure and now that we've made the sacrifice it's time for Germany to go into debt... for income tax decreases for the wealthy... FDP's proposal feels like a big joke. 88 billion for absolutely nothing. https://twitter.com/AnnaGallinaHH/status/1432079457905483779/photo/1 https://twitter.com/AnnaGallinaHH/status/1432079457905483779... https://twitter.com/boavista_social/status/1424628623496126468/photo/1 https://twitter.com/boavista_social/status/14246286234961264... Whenever a government goes into debt to finance infrastructure the bean counters will tell you, no, you can't waste money like that. That infrastructure will only last 20-30 years. Future generations will be burdened by the roads, public transportation and clean energy infrastructure we have built for them. The truth is that when you are doing something like an infrastructure investment, the people that are making sacrifices are people who could have worked on something more productive. Companies don't seem to care. If they are lacking labor they simply set up business in Asia. If the infrastructure bill hires unemployed people then the present net burden could even be negative.

elihu 5y ago

Bipartisan bills still happen, but when it comes to climate change or improving our health care system or reforming election laws or changing the tax code so the extremely wealthy pay effective rates that are in line with what the middle class or moderately wealthy pay, there just aren't any Republican votes for those things. Bipartisanship is a nice idea, but if two parties are ideologically opposed then sometimes no compromise is possible. The options in the U.S. to move legislation then become: use budget reconciliation and 50 votes plus the vice president, get rid of (or seriously reform) the filibuster, or wait for a 60-vote Senate supermajority. The latter happened in 2009 and lasted for a couple of weeks (it took a long time for Al Franken to be seated, and then Ten Kennedy died), and may never happen again in our lifetimes.

gaze 5y ago

Any time there was bipartisan consensus, both sides agreed to do truly awful things -- e.g. Iraq war. I don't miss "reach across the aisle" one bit. Although, now the dems are largely playing Kayfabe so eh. Lose/lose.