GOP needs ‘the art of the deal’ to tame chaos

 

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.”

Republican Right would bar compromise

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.