Nov 12 2009
Parties Seek Balance Between Purity, Compromise
Retired President Bill Clinton addressed Senate Democrats this week in hopes of spurring them to bridge intra-party divides and pass a health-care reform bill. One of the biggest hurdles between the two bills floating around the chamber is that one measure includes a public option while the other lacks that component.
By all accounts, the meeting went well. Clinton surely told the senators about his failure to pass a health care 15 years ago. Some of the senators lived that debacle and the resulting electoral fallout where Republicans swept to power in Congress.
Pundits are saying that passing any bill is better than not passing a bill at all. That sort of thinking seems dangerous since it encourages desperate thinking. For example, the bevy of bailouts.
Republicans are united. They don’t want to pass a Democratic proposal. They are stuck between “no” and “me too.” Attempts to offer an alternative haven’t gained much traction in the media. Due to House procedural rules, the GOP had little chance to get anything done in the lower chamber. There is more hope in the upper house thanks to the threat of filibustering.
Indeed the big question in the House was whether moderate Democrats would vote to approve the bill. Enough of them did to obtain final passage, 220-215, but 39 of them voted no. At least three of those 219 Democrats (not counting Republican Joseph Cao’s aye vote) almost certainly would have voted against the legislation without the Stupak Amendment, which bars insurance companies that pay for abortions to be a part of the proposed federal insurance exchanges.
The amendment split the House Democratic caucus. No Republican voted against the amendment although one abstained.
Republicans had their own intra-party squabble on Election Day. Bill Owens is the first Democrat to represent New York’s 23rd Congressional District since the 19th century. He narrowly defeated Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, after Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava was considered too liberal for the upstate district.
A state legislator, Scozzafava was pilloried by national Republicans for months for her views on social issues until she withdrew from the race on Halloween. Obviously smarting from the bruising criticism from people she assumed would be allies since they all have a “R” next to their names, Scozzafava endorsed Owens instead of Hoffman. In a close race, each endorsement was key.
New York Republicans have retaliated by stripping Scozzafava of her committee chairmanship in the legislature. Democrats have pointed at the spat as an example of the GOP demanding ideological purity from its candidates. Then again, it’s hard to believe the Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
Every party wants a majority in a legislative body. The odds of enacting favorable legislation are better. Every party wants as many people as possible to feel included. They want the proverbial “big tent.”
The tricky part is finding equilibrium between the largest possible membership–and the inherent compromises required to boost numbers–and being able to count on members to vote with the party on key issues. If people aren’t going to back the party’s position at least most of the time, what’s the point of having them in the party?
The difference is that conservatives seem to have made a philosophy out of “the checks in the Mail”, “I won’t in your mouth” and “this won’t hurt a bit.” The worst terrorist homeland attack in the history of America took place on Bush’s watch… that is not an opinion it is a historic fact.