Voters said in November they wanted bipartisan cooperation
in Congress next year. They got their
wish early as this year’s Congress move toward its end.
They may have also helped create a Congress next year
composed of four political parties not only the deadlocked Republicans and
Democrats. Both of the major parties
have split in two.
The GOP divide developed after the 2010 election of
candidates backed by the Tea Party movement.
Having made strong commitments in their campaigns to stick to their
promised conservative positions, they have refused to accept the compromises
necessary to pass bills.
Their power came partly from an informal rule that the GOP
would not pass bills unless they had the support of a majority of the majority.
In other words, unless bills could gain the
votes of most of the
Republicans, they would not even be considered.
At first, longer serving Republican House members, worried
about primary challenges from tea partiers, went along with their hard
line. But, by the 2014 congressional
elections, traditional Republicans, not moderate but willing to compromise, beat
Tea Party challengers and regained their confidence.
Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, and many
of their leaders believe that winning the presidency in 2016 means showing the
party can govern and that governing requires compromise.
Across the aisle, Democratic legislators have been
criticized by some of their supporters for being so worried about the apparent
popularity of GOP conservatism that they either adopt similar views or do not
pursue traditional party positions favoring an active government role in
matters ranging from environmental protection to bank regulation.
Some Democrats attribute their party’s losses in this year’s
congressional elections to many of its candidates having taken up anti-government
positions.
As a result, a split has emerged between so-called
progressive Democrats, who see an important role for government, and moderate
Democrats who seek compromises with the GOP, recognizing the congressional
balance of power will favor the Republicans for at least the next two years.
The role of each of these four “parties” became clear during
last week’s votes on adopting a federal budget.
Failure to do so would have forced the government to shut down, which
most senators and congressmen, to say nothing of the president, did not want.
The compromise required that Democrats accept GOP add-ons. One eases controls on big banks, allowing
them to undertake risky investments with federal backing, making a federal
bailout again possible. The other allows
a ten-fold increase in the size of financial contributions to political
parties.
The House voted first, adopting the budget by a narrow
219-206 vote. Among the Democrats, 57
voted for the bill, to support both compromise and President Obama, who had
announced he could accept it. On the
other side, 67 Republicans, who failed to get the bill to block Obama’s
immigration policy, opposed the compromise.
Maine representatives, both Democrats, voted against the
bill, because of their opposition to the GOP amendments.
The same story unfolded in the Senate in its last days under
Democratic control. The budget passed
56-40. As in the House, the opposition
came from a mix of members of both parties, with the GOP seeking an attack on
immigration policy and the Democrats opposing the relaxed bank regulation.
Both Maine senators, Republican Susan Collins and
Independent Angus King, supported the budget compromise. They have campaigned as compromisers.
The development of two split parties in Congress could lead
to further compromise deals as the Republicans try to pass bills that the
Democrats won’t filibuster and Obama will sign.
In that way, Congress will slide to the right, rather than moving as
rapidly as the tea partiers want.
Republicans, in the Senate majority, may be willing to spurn
the tea partiers to show they can govern.
Among the Democrats, the compromisers and those who view making deals
with the GOP as selling out, will test their relative strength.
The intra-party congressional struggles are likely to be
reflected in the presidential candidate selection process.
The GOP, rejecting tea partiers, could lean toward selecting
a traditional conservative like Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, or John
Kasich, the current Ohio governor, to show it wants to govern and not merely
score debating points.
While Hillary Clinton seems likely to gain the Democratic
nomination, she may face opposition from the progressives, perhaps led by
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Whether that pulls Clinton to the left or costs her the nomination
remains to be seen.
Whatever happens, the four-way split promises an unusual
political scene in the next two years.
No comments:
Post a Comment