The chimera of "bipartisanship" with Republicans is enough of a fraud already; Democrats have too much on their hands playing "bipartisan" with its own recalcitrants

 

Why is it that some Democrats still believe in that chimera of “bipartisanship”? Perhaps on national security issues there is legitimate room for it, but in general—as we saw during the Clinton administration—“bipartisanship” with the new breed of Republicanism in Congress meant caving in to their whims on a crime bill that turned pot smokers into prison lifers, gutted social welfare programs and public housing, and killed financial regulation (calling it “reform”) which led directly to the “Great Recession.” The only “liberal” bill passed before the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 was the Violence Against Women Act, Hillary Clinton’s pet project and compendium of hypocrisy of the self-obsessed after her disastrous turn trying to push through healthcare reform. And as we saw during the Obama administration, once Republicans gained the majority in 2010, they only had one game plan: go on a “search-and-destroy” mission.

The reality is that Republicans only like “bipartisanship” when they are in the minority. When in the majority, they don’t even let a Democrat in the room. Republicans didn’t do much when George Bush and Donald Trump were in office—except pass, through reconciliation, needless tax cuts that benefitted only the rich and corporations, which is their primary reason for existence. In order to cloud their plebian constituents’ minds about this, on “domestic” policy they just engage in cultural and racial wars that are now aided by their killing of the judicial filibuster, which during the Trump administration allowed them to load up the courts with far-right judges, most of them political hacks with no judicial qualifications.

Yet there are Democrats who loath to pass a voting rights bill by ending the Senate filibuster rule on that and all other priorities. They claim to believe in “bipartisanship,” but in fact it is just a cover story and expression of fear of constituents who did not even vote for them. Who cares about voters who never will vote for you anyways, no matter how much a spending bill will help them? Giving Joe Manchin a “pass” because he represents a blood-red state can only go so far. Bernie Sanders is the most liberal member of the Senate, and voters in his state keep supporting him because he actually believes strongly in something; if he compromises with other Democrats, he still makes plain what he really wants.

The same was true for Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone before he died in a plane crash in 2002. Voters respected his uncompromising, sincere progressive beliefs; they elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, by less than 2 percentage points in his place because Walter Mondale was just old news and his stepping in was clearly opportunistic; Coleman would only serve one term, defeated by Al Franken in 2008. On the other hand, it is impossible to respect whatever it is that Kyrsten Sinema “stands” for. It is highly unlikely that Republican voters in her state will respect her faithlessness to her own party come reelection time, even if they “like” her spitting in the face of Democratic priorities, like voting rights, raising the minimum wage and now the “Build Back Better” spending bill.

Democrats and anyone who cares about this country should not seek to be “bipartisan” with people who think like far-right opinionators like Clyde Crews Jr., who opined in Forbes that infrastructure was a local, not federal priority, and argued absurdly that “trillions” of dollars could somehow be returned to the states so that they could “fix” their own infrastructure. We have seen many decades pass in which such a pipedream is exactly that; when states already have budget issues (even red states with non-existent social safety net programs coupled with low taxes), they are not going spend extra money on infrastructure beyond fixing potholes if they can get away with it before people are killed.

The infrastructure “compromise” bill that was passed in the Senate with “bipartisan” support is a bit if a joke, since less than half of it is actually new spending. As Reuters reported in June, only half of what was originally proposed—let alone what is needed—is going to roads, bridges, mass transit and electric vehicle infrastructure; the latter will see less than one-tenth the funding originally proposed—only a “winner” for the fossil fuel industry. Infrastructure to improve internet access for low-income and rural communities also saw major cuts. Replacing aging and deadly lead piping saw a huge cut, from a proposed $111 billion to less than a fifth of that. Also being kicked down the road is modernizing drinking, waste and storm water systems. And don’t even mention “human infrastructure” and affordable housing. That is what Democrats “compromised” in seeking that fraud called “bipartisanship.”

I’m not wasting any tears or time on what Sinema wants; that fact that she almost immediately shifted from being a Green Party “progressive” to a right-of-center politician proves only one thing: that she is a conceited narcissist whose only concern is herself—and she deserves no “sympathy” for that. Why did Manchin insist on “bipartisanship” on the infrastructure bill? In June, even editorial boards like that of the Des Moines Register in another state whose legislature has gone bat-shit far-right, decried attempts at “bipartisanship” with Republicans, urging Democrats to just “negotiate” with recalcitrant members in its own party, like Manchin.

But Manchin seemed to believe that he needed the “cover” supplied by Republicans who at least were “honest” about knowing that some of that money was helping their own states. Manchin could at least insinuate to his constituents that he helped kill the parts of the bill that might “inadvertently” help, say, the “undeserving poor” and black people; it was all “good” because even other Republicans thought that was a good enough to vote for—and hey, Flint and its fecal-matter infested “drinking” water coming out of ancient lead pipes was just an “anecdote.”

Of course, there is no effort at present to pursue a “bipartisan” compromise on the Build Back Better plan; even Manchin knows that is a waste of time. Polling indicates that the public has no clue about what is in the bill, which shouldn’t be surprising since Sinema seems keen on revealing nothing, and Manchin’s “framework” amounts to nothing that isn’t already on the books, much like the infrastructure bill. Wherever Manchin and Sinema are at, that is more than too much “bipartisanship” to have to deal with already.