John Perilli: Bipartisanship Is Ugly

John Perilli: Bipartisanship Is Ugly

It's a political cliche as old and hallowed as time. Wouldn't life be great if our elected leaders could just work together? But it's not that simple.

Across political parties and across time, polls have shown that American voters desire bipartisanship. We want our elected officials to work together and find solutions to our nation's problems. However, these same polls show that we're as polarized as ever. How can this be?

Our problem, I believe, is that we don't fully understand the sacrifices that make bipartisanship work. Too often, we view compromise as a friendly, idealistic process, when in reality it is a bitter story of concessions and broken promises. If our leaders are to have any flexibility to negotiate, and ultimately, to find some middle ground and govern, we need to more fully understand what this takes.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Survey Says...

I would like to lead with a question: "Do you believe our elected officials should work to pass legislation that both parties agree on?"

According to polls, over three quarters of Americans would say yes. This holds for both Democrats and Republicans, as well as Independents. The bipartisan spirit in our country runs broad and deep.

But here's a follow-up:

If you are a liberal, how willing would you be to trim Social Security and Medicare if you thought you could strike an elusive deal? To decrease investment in renewable energy? To reduce unemployment benefits?

Or, if you are a conservative, how willing would you be to impose regulations on firearms to secure a long-sought compromise? To empower unions? To raise taxes?

Many proud partisans––myself included––would look at the questions posed to their side and quickly answer "not very willing at all." But this is exactly the problem. How can we desire bipartisanship, but be unwilling to make these difficult bargains? I'm not saying that any of the above ideas are good or bad. I am only saying that there is a disconnect at the heart of American politics: The idea that we can be both partisan and bipartisan at the same time.

A Hard Bargain

Consider a relevant (and rare) example of Democrats and Republicans cooperating in Congress: the recent federal budget proposal.

It was the result of hours of intense negotiations between the parties, led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R–Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), and should it pass both the House and Senate, it would be the first true budget our country has had in four years.

It is certainly a flawed document. As a liberal, I have a great many problems with the bill: It does not extend federal unemployment benefits. It keeps in place many of the cuts imposed by the infamous "sequester." It slashes pensions for federal workers.

I'm sure conservatives have plenty of issues with it as well.

But even considering it's faults, the budget is undoubtedly bipartisan, and outlines an important point about bipartisanship in general: the results it produces aren't always pretty.

In a telling moment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) implored her fellow Democrats to " embrace the suck" and vote for the bill in spite of their reservations. Only 32 Democrats out of a caucus of 201 did not. The bill passed the House 332-94 with wide majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, many of whom were doubtless holding their noses as the final vote was cast.

However, the budget is far better than the other way of funding our government: bickering over a short-term deal every few months and threatening a federal shutdown. At the height of our recent government closure, with thousands of federal workers on furlough and hundreds of vital programs grinding to a halt, this budget would have seemed like water in the desert.

Ultimately, this is why people support bipartisanship. The costs of inaction on important issues like the budget are often higher than the gains of playing politics. But that does not mean the process of compromise is easy.

The Consequences

Now step into the shoes of a Democratic or Republican congressperson who has just voted on a difficult bipartisan bill. They now have to go back home and sell the deal to their constituents, who are now rightfully upset that their representative departed from their elected principles. Their approval ratings might fall, making them more vulnerable to a primary or general election challenge. And they might never get the full trust of their voters back.

On one hand, this accountability is a good thing––it allows us to hold our representatives responsible for decisions we don't agree with. But on the other hand, how are our elected officials supposed to govern if they are constantly under fire for not being partisan enough?

I think it's time for us to take a hard look at our conception of "bipartisanship." It's a lofty, patriotic ideal, but the devil is in the details. In truth, bipartisanship is difficult. It comes at the price of long negotiations, difficult concessions and tough compromises. We like to look back fondly at the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, but don't want to accept how hard it was for them to make sacrifices and work together.

This is not to say that we should abandon our parties and our principles. We still ought to hold our representatives accountable when they repeatedly wrong us. But we must also realize that hard bipartisan deals are sometimes the difference between success and dysfunction in the halls of power, and can affect the very ability of our nation to govern itself.

John Perilli is a native of Cumberland, RI and a junior at Brown University. He is the Communications Director for the Brown University Democrats. The opinions presented in this article do not necessarily represent those of the organizations of which John Perilli is a member.