Gordon L. Weil
A reliable political mantra of candidates is that they can “work
across the aisle,” suggesting that they are ready to compromise.
This claim is meant to attract support from voters who
dislike the pervasive, political divide and want a government that gets things
done, taking on tasks on a widely shared national agenda. The candidates give them what they want to
hear.
Then, nothing happens.
This week, Congress adopted budget bills with wide support. Compromise?
They reflected what President Trump wanted and, for the most part, what
the Democrats had to accept. The Dems would
otherwise look stingy, when one of the chief reelection selling points for incumbents
is how much federal money they bring home.
As soon as the bills were signed, Maine GOP Sen. Susan
Collins touted the higher-than-average payout she got for the state. The GOP was generous to Maine, because
Collins faces a tough reelection this year in a seat the GOP must hold. Collins wanted Mainers to believe the funding
resulted from her Senate power, whatever the political reality.
Collins chairs the Appropriations Committee, which should
give her major influence over federal spending.
But, these days, spending reflects Trump’s priorities. The art of the congressional deal is to guarantee
that enough senators have their priorities met to ensure the 60 votes required
to end debate and vote.
The result may be less about policy compromises than on these
payments and meeting personal priorities.
But senators could not pass spending by the Department of Homeland
Security, where critically needed compromise could not be reached. The ICE killing of a couple of American citizens
had raised policy clashes to public attention, making compromise elusive.
With their dominance of all branches of government, Republicans
have an unusual approach to the idea of compromise. To many of them, compromise means getting the
Democrats to accept their positions, without amendment. The small payoff to the Democrats for falling
in line is protection from being attacked for their unwillingness to
compromise.
This approach departs from historical practice. Of course, the majority always gets to call
the shots. But, mindful of its potential
to be in a later minority, it may give way to some of the opposition’s demands. That’s what has passed for bipartisan
legislation.
This kind of bipartisanship had the built-in advantage of
slowing political change. A more
deliberate pace can reduce errors and promote more careful consideration. That’s gone, now.
The GOP hard line has engendered a similar attitude among the
Democrats. While they continue to seek
ways to extract a few crumbs from the Republican table, they have significantly
become unwilling to compromise. Instead of offering alternatives, their prime
policy seems to be “we aren’t Trump.”
Though no compromise seems possible, that may not really be
the case. Deals that promote positive outcomes
are unlikely between the parties, but inside each party it may still be
possible. Both parties are divided, so
compromise may begin at home.
Trump’s MAGA forces have taken over the Republican Party. Instead of developing policies from the ground
up, they are imposed from the White House down.
The neo-GOP has pushed aside traditional, conservative Republicans, who now
have little influence on policy, but are expected to go along with the new look
or risk losing their seats.
But the GOP is now running into problems. Some Republicans like North Carolina Senator
Tom Tillis and Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon won’t run again. They are loyal conservatives, but have become
restive under MAGA rule. Even a strong
loyalist like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene finally turned against MAGA control
and left the House.
The GOP likely needs to reduce internal conflict, bring back
some traditional Republicans and find ways of compromising. In turn, that could make the party more open
to dealing with the Democrats. An
authentic Republican revival could be the key to bipartisan compromise.
The Democrats also are split. Progressives demand strong government action
on social issues, the environment and health insurance. Moderates focus on bread-and-butter issues and
concede that Trump has endorsed some policies that reflect the popular will.
The Democrats might stop wrangling with one another and find
a unifying platform, responding to broad public concerns. They need a charismatic spokesperson to
present a common agenda. This may
disappoint progressives, but it may be what the times require.
A modest change in the style within both parties may be seen
by the public as a response to the desire for compromise that could produce practical,
less partisan, results.
That asks a lot from Trump, but as he faces increased opposition,
he might have to accept compromise within the GOP and even with Democrats. That could produce more widely supported and
lasting change to replace unnerving chaos with “the art of the deal.”
