Bipartisanship is an interesting concept. It’s one of those respected sorts of things politicians like to tout.
However, recent national developments are convincing me, traditionally a supporter of bipartisanship, that the concept in practice might not be so good after all. The two developments are the presidential debate and the economic bailout proposal. They are interrelated.
Saturday’s debate was extremely dry and a little pointless. John McCain, who bragged at least twice about not being his party’s Miss Congeniality and has often focused on his own bipartisan tendencies, refused to look at Barack Obama throughout most of the debate despite moderator Jim Lehrer’s incessant begging for a head-to-head wrestling match.
But there were drier aspects of the debate other than McCain. Let’s take a look at each candidate’s stances expressed during the event, and you will probably see my point.
McCain wants to chase Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell. Obama wants to do the same thing but says he won’t funnel billions of dollars to Pakistan to do it.
McCain says Russia is in the wrong for using military force in Ossetia. Obama believes the same thing but says he would look into the Russian prime minister’s eyes differently than McCain would.
I guess you could say Obama and McCain are fairly bipartisan. They seem to agree on many issues, spurring independents to say there is not really a difference between the two major parties.
Of course, the economic bailout package, which was discussed at Saturday’s debate before being rejected Monday by the House, illustrates the independent sentiment quite well.
Both McCain, whose party in the House has now voted against the package, and Obama showed support for the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
As much as McCain claims to be for lowering taxes and deregulating the market, which he said was a “fundamental difference” he has with his opponent, his support for this bill totally undermines his claims. How can a politician support deregulating the economy and at the same time throw $700 billion at a problem? I’m tired of presidential candidates who lose their principles in order to save their images, whether in choosing a running mate or voting however it takes to get swing votes.
When it comes to the so-called “rescue bill,” I agree with Dick Cheney when he said in a 2007 Fortune article: “The fact is, the markets work, and they are working. And people – some of the big companies obviously – have taken risks. Risk means risk. And there’s an upside as well as a downside in some of the choices they’ve made. We have to be careful not to have this set of developments lead us to significantly expand the role of government in ways that may do damage long-term for the economy.”
Unfortunately, Cheney no longer shares this opinion. The administration, along with a number of other Republicans and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, has tried to scare lawmakers into voting for the bailout. Supporters of the bill are fond of saying it will be the end of the world if the bill isn’t passed.
“Like the Iraq war and Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and haste,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, according to a CNNMoney article.
The bailout has been lauded by its supporters as being a bipartisan effort to save the world. In the end, it shows where the hearts of many of our lawmakers are (with Wall Street) and is being used to cast opposing parties in a bad light before an election month.
Matt Watson is the opinion editor of The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected].