http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/23/ag…
COMMENT: ELIZABETH SCHULTE
Against bipartisanship

Elizabeth Schulte explains what Barack Obama's promise to pursue "bipartisanship" will mean.

January 23, 2009 | Issue 689 [1]

BARACK OBAMA is in the White House, and he says that means the beginning of a brand-new era in Washington--of "post-partisan" politics.

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises," Obama declared in his inauguration speech, "the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that, for far too long, have strangled our politics."

Actually, Obama's talk about "bipartisanship" isn't brand new at all--it's one of the oldest political clichés in the book.

The argument for bipartisanship is that the right and the left have to work together because the public is sick of the gridlock in Washington. What Americans want is action, the argument goes, not more argument and debate.

This does reflect something real about popular opinion. But it's not that people don't care about real political differences. It's that they can't stand empty bickering and grandstanding when no one can understand what's at stake.

In fact, the real problem isn't that the two major parties disagree on too many issues, but on too few--and when they do disagree, the debate isn't about the substance of issues, but appearances and trivia.

The fact of the matter is that there are many issues that are too important to bargain about--the right of same-sex couples to marry, like anyone else; or help for workers who are having their homes snatched from them in the sub-prime loan debacle; or an end to U.S. support for Israel's war on the Palestinians.

Put simply, there are two sides to these arguments, one is the right side--and "reaching across the aisle" to "find consensus" only means concessions on politically important questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OBAMA HAS no need to concede on anything at the center of the program he proposed during the election. He won on the basis of overwhelming support for a change from the status quo.

That sentiment only grew as Inauguration Day approached. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll released before the inauguration, 79 percent of the population was optimistic about the next four years under Obama, the most favorable rating among all of the last five presidents. Fifty-eight percent of McCain voters said they were optimistic about the incoming administration.

As the Los Angeles Times pointed out:

Obama takes office with big advantages, such as a Democratic majority in Congress, a grassroots network and e-mail list of 13 million people, and high approval ratings...

Even Republicans, who are searching for new leadership and a new identity, will be wary of challenging Obama, at least right away. "Nobody wants to be painted as the guy that wouldn't give Barack Obama the chance to get his program started," said Dick Armey, a former House Republican leader who is now a conservative activist. "No one wants to be seen as the skunk at the garden party."

Four years ago, a puffed-up George Bush bragged that he was going to spend his "political capital" from winning re-election--and his presidency promptly plunged toward disaster.

If anyone does have "political capital" to spend on the promises that won him such overwhelming support, it's Barack Obama. But instead, he's playing up his supposed ability to reach out to conservatives.

In the days leading up to the inauguration, he reportedly sat down for dinner at George Will's house with conservative pundits William Kristol, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer. And at the inauguration itself, Obama asked right-wing, anti-gay minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation, giving him a platform unlike any he's ever had.

The truth is that when Washington politicians preach moderation and "centrism," and call for the left and right to come together in the middle, it almost never means the right moving to the left. Instead, it's a cover for the political debate to be pulled to the right.

As Thomas Frank wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

[T]he real-world function of Beltway centrism has not been to wage high-minded war against "both extremes," but to fight specifically against the economic and foreign policies of liberalism. Centrism's institutional triumphs have been won mainly if not entirely within the Democratic Party. Its greatest exponent, President Bill Clinton, persistently used his own movement as a foil in his great game of triangulation.

And centrism's achievements? Well, there's NAFTA, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor. There's the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. There's the Iraq war resolution, approved by numerous Democrats in brave defiance of their party's left. Triumphs all...

Frank concludes, "Centrism is a chump's game. Democrats have massive majorities these days not because they waffle hither and yon, but because their historic principles have been vindicated by events. This is their moment. Let the other side do the triangulating."

The Democrats are in power after eight long years of Republican rule, and the expectation is that they will enact significant changes. There have already been some. As one of his first acts, Obama signed an executive order to close down the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

But it's important to remember that while they might differ on the hows of the "war on terror," the Democrats typically agree with the Republicans on whats and whys.

As the executive of the world's leading military and economic superpower, the Obama administration has inherited the same central project as all the administrations--of both parties--that came before it. Its priority is projecting U.S. imperial power abroad and maintaining corporate interests at home. The Obama administration might do it without Guantánamo, but it will do all it can to serve this agenda.

There's good reason to believe that change is possible, but it won't be the kind we want unless we take a side and fight for it.