Gordon L. Weil
It’s only a small issue,
but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing
more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.
The Maine House
Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state
legislator” to be Public Advocate. There
it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct
word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.
The use of “Democrat” is meant
as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that
the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version. The Democrats have not counterattacked with
their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been
replaced by Trump loyalists.
The almost total and
persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word. The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the
House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to
rely on Democratic support to pass bills.
Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line
behind the GOP.
Susan Collins, Maine’s
Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise
over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different
legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not
just to score political points.” In her
speech, she used the term “Democratic.”
That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.
But the Republican game,
especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points. If you score enough points, you win the game
and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a
handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government
over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.
After a sound electoral
victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates. He pressured Freedom Caucus members to
support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count. But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump
claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the
alleged killer was American-born.
The Republican extreme
right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that
goes wrong to the Democrats. That is
hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict.
The right can block
decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic
support. With a slim majority, the
Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.
If the federal government
has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats. They need to stop agonizing over why they
lost and try to respond to popular concerns.
Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal
compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending
and taxes.
The Democrats need to
develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action. It cannot offer something for everyone, and
it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and
immigration.
The party could start a
platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people
from across the country. Presumably, the
new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this
process.
The Democrats need a
coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections. They also need a leader. They cannot put off
both decisions until the 2028 campaign.
The major financial
backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they
would support. While the ultimate choice
is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the
2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial
backing to speak for their platform.
The Democrats should be
looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than
simply opposing the Republicans. That
means they could support some Trump proposals.
If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not
lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.
Possibly the best way for
Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation
a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of
senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each
party in the Senate. Four moderates from
each party could do it.
If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived. Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses. The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal.
