Snake Oil Political Analysis

SELF-SERVING POLITICAL SCIENCE

I recently read an editorial page column lauding the merits of congressional partisanship; conversely, downgrading the value of bipartisanship. It should be noted that our local newspaper has two facing editorial pages. The left page carries left of center editorials and columns while, of course, the right side page presents conservative editorials and columns. The column this blog is referring to was on the right hand page written by rightist columnist Gary Andres and entitled "Overrated bipartisanship".

Relying on the research of others, Andres said that the evident partisanship in Congress is the result of increasing political homogeneity of congressional districts, Republican and Democratic, with the former becoming more conservative and the latter more liberal. Andres then goes on to say that as members become less cross-pressured by this ideological homogeneity, they have relinquished their power to party leaders in Congress and the leaders increasingly use parliamentary procedures to accomplish political objectives. Result: ". . . the polarized environment that envelops Congress today."

While it is certainly not self-evident that everything he says is correct, especially the part about rank and file members relinquishing more power to party leaders, the really disturbing part of his column is the conclusion that the increasing partisanship is a good thing.

What is good about this partisanship, he argues, is that it produces more party responsibility which in turn aids the voter to clarify each party's position on major issues. In that sense, he says, we are approximating the European model of party responsibility rather than perpetuating the blame game where both sides blame the other for what goes wrong or isn't getting done. Partisanship thus helps voters to caste more informed ballots, he asserts.

One obvious problem with such a conclusion is that the European model he sees us approximating with more partisanship is the parliamentary model. In broad brush description, in a parliamentary system the voters cast their ballot for a member of parliament and the party winning a majority of seats picks its party leader as the head of government--Prime Minister, Premier, Chancellor. If the party in power cannot reach agreement on policy or falls under a cloud of scandal, they can choose a new leader/Prime Minister, or, if necessary, hold new parliamentary elections. In Europe also, governance is sometimes through a coalition of parties so delicately constructed that it is difficult to make important policy decisions without one or so coalition members dropping out and forcing new elections. (Think post-World War II Italy or Israel's coalition government today in terms of decisions about building new settlements on the West Bank.)

But ours is a presidential system. The head of government (and in our case, also the head of state) is chosen independently of the Congress and thus we frequently end up with divided government, the President of one party and Congress of the other. Possibly also, a divided Congress with the House and Senate controlled by different parties, an outcome we may have after the November elections. And, unlike parliamentary systems, we have fixed elections for both the President and Congress and can't call a new election just to throw the rascals out. Also, and importantly, even if the President and Congress are controlled by the same party with similar ideologies, both have institutional powers and prerogatives they feel a need to protect against the infringement of the other. So the European model that Andres trots out as his paradigm simply doesn't fit either the Constitution or some of the basics of our politics.

Secondly, since Andres has taken the political science road to tell us how good partisanship is, there is also the principle of political efficacy which includes the belief that our individual vote can make a difference. In a district with one-party and ideological homogeneity, a member of the out-party, Republican or Democrat, is not likely to feel that increased partisanship helps her or him participate more effectively. I live in a one-party congressional district, Republican, and I go to the poll out of a need to persevere but under no illusion that my vote will make a difference. (It is also a one-party state for presidential elections.)

In short, the case for "the more partisanship the better" comes off as simply a justification for the naked Republican obstructionism practiced in the current Congress. If, as being projected/speculated by analysts, the next Congress will be more Republican and more conservative, the outlook ahead for this blogger is dismal indeed. Certainly it is difficult to imagine that the case for more partisanship is anything other than a self-serving right wing view wrapped up in the snake oil medicine of how good it is for the country and the voter.