Thoughts on Unity

Ezra Klein had an OP/ED in the L.A. Times on the subject of “unity” on Sunday. In the OP/ED, Ezra says, “even a consensus-building, problem-solving president can’t solve political gridlock.” He’s got a point and a very good point. 

“Unity” ain’t a fix all for America’s ills. For all the hype on bringing everyone together it won’t fix the problems in Washington.

What accounts for all this talk of unity and bipartisanship and non-ideological problem solving? Speechwriters have no end of hoary terms of uplift to choose from. There’s “individualism” and “family,” “values” and “faith.” So why are unity and competence so crucial to this year’s message?

The short answer is that the candidates have no other choice. Washington these days is rived by partisanship, but that’s not necessarily anything new or even particularly worrisome. In Washington, partisanship is like the San Francisco fog; it rolls in, hangs out for a while, and everyone goes about their business. The problem is, in this case, it’s created total, impenetrable gridlock.

So, though elections are usually about what is to be done, this campaign has been unusually focused on whether it is in fact possible to get anything done. That’s why you have Clinton touting her governmental experience and legislative skill, Obama emphasizing his unifying presence and talent for achieving consensus, Romney reminding voters that he once rendered the Olympics profitable, Unity ’08 swearing that all we need is a bipartisan ticket, Bloomberg promising to be as good at governing as he was at getting rich, and so on and so on.

The problem is that hearing all these presidential hopefuls pledge to end gridlock is a bit like having a friend promise to fix my toilet by checking under the hood of my car. Analytically, it’s misguided. Now, fish have to swim, and candidates have to over-promise, so let’s grant that they may not believe all their own hype.

Klein suggests “we shouldn’t ignore the essential incoherence at the heart of these arguments.” 

Political gridlock begins in the U.S. Senate, but we keep trying to end it in the White House. There is no potential executive in either party who would not like to manifest his or her agenda by sheer force of will. But in reality, President Mike Bloomberg would be as stymied as President Hillary Clinton or President Mitt Romney, because you don’t get a doctor’s note exempting you from the legislative process just because you ran, or even govern, as an independent. If you don’t believe me, ask Arnold Schwarzenegger, the classic post-partisan unifier who couldn’t attract a single Republican vote for his centrist health plan when it went before the Assembly.

Gridlock isn’t a mystery. It’s not some sort of untraceable crime. It happens live on C-SPAN every day of the week. It’s a function of the rules of the Senate, where 40 senators can refuse to end debate on legislation and thus doom its chances of passage. Because of the undemocratic nature of the Senate, which gives Montana as many senators as California, those 40 senators can represent as little as 11.2% of the population.

This is the power of the filibuster, and it used to be a rarely invoked power, as the culture of the Senate prized compromise and consensus. In the 1977-78 congressional term, for instance, there were only 13 filibusters. Ten years later, there were 43. Ten years after that, there were 53. The Democrats used the tactic plenty when they were in the opposition a couple of years ago, but now that they’re in power, it is the Republicans who are having a filibuster party. If they maintain their current pace, they’ll have filibustered a full 134 times this term, more than doubling any other year on record. It’s obstructionism on a truly historic scale.

Add to that obstructionist minority a divided government (the White House controlled by one party, Congress by another), the tensions of an ongoing war and a lame-duck president with no chosen successor and thus little concern for his plummeting popularity, and you have a moment that laughs at legislative progress. That’s why the presidential campaign has become so focused on “getting things done.”

But it’s not up to the president.

And just what might fix the gridlock in Washington, you ask, if a “unity” preaching presidential candidate won’t? Ezra’s got some ideas which include the media doing their job and the voters ejecting “politicians who refuse to compromise.”

There are a variety of fixes for a filibuster-happy minority. The media, for example, could start accurately reporting the cause of the gridlock, shaming the relevant senators and increasing political pressure to compromise. The voters could eject politicians who refuse to compromise, laying down an electorally enforced preference for a functioning government. The Senate majority could change the rules, essentially eliminating the filibuster. Groups such as Unity ’08 could arise and, rather than wasting everyone’s time with idle fantasies of ever more dreamy executives, could campaign against Senate rules that are undemocratic and hostile to progress.

But the president can’t do this, not on his or her own. Unity means nothing in the face of obstructionism, and problems can’t be solved if legislators refuse to solve them. 

It’s a grand notion to try to bring everyone together and claim that change will come through “unity” but attracting voters from the otherside of the aisle won’t make a difference and neither will a president who courts them. There’s a lot more that needs to change in Washington and it starts in my book by increasing the majority so there’s more clout to get things down. “Unity” is a grand notion, “but it’s not up to the president.”

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Thoughts on Unity

  1. Well said. I think there are even more factors that blend into this mixture of a desire for essential, foundational attitude change and a craving for actual action. Perhaps they are for another post.

    The two factors above aren’t mutually exclusive. Yet they are nearly so. One is theoretical and one is based in Practical Political Action. Not easy to reconcile into an effective result.

    Well sourced article. Thanks.

  2. Darrell Prows says:

    So the uniter couldn’t prevail upon the Senate leadership of his party to filibuster less often than twice as many times as had ever been done. I suspect that that’s another inconvenient truth that we’ll hear nothing about in the big speech.

  3. bjerryberg says:

    Thanks for pointing this one out. Klein makes some useful points. Unity, Schmunity! It is vastly overrated.

    When some folks are lying to start wars and trying to shred the Constitution–its time to have some polarization–with teeth!!

    When Nancy Pelosi, the hedge fund manager’s wife, famously, b-ipartisanly declared a year ago, that ‘impeachment was not on the table’ for the incoming Democratic majority she gave Cheney a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card.

    Shred the Constitution, lie to start a world war–we Dems will protest your crimes a bit–but we won’t prosecute. Hitler and Mussolini had ‘opponents’ like that. Only the economy was healthier and less of bubble back then.