Bipartisanship is Date Rape

Or, It's Grover Norquist's World, We Just Pay Rent For It.

Thomas Nephew and Tunesmith (in comments here) take issue with my citation of the parable of the fox (or frog) and the scorpion with regard to Tunesmith's efforts at politology.us to form a bipartisan blogger coalition to oppose the Bankruptcy Bill in the House, now that it's already passed the Senate.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this issue (common cause, that is -- there's more to come on the Bankruptcy Bill) after today, but I'll address their points. 

First, Thomas Nephew's position:

But the situation here is unlike the parable in that the fox (us) has no realistic way of crossing the river without the scorpion (them). It seems to me we can always part ways later on, if the bill is allowed to proceed under "open rules" allowing amendments to Sensenbrenner's bill. I'd probably favor Democratic amendments over Republican ones at that point. Open rules are admittedly a big "if."  But if that doesn't happen, the bill is probably a lock to win anyway.

While I appreciate the pragmatism of Thomas's argument, I disagree with his assessment of the facts.  First, the Republicans in the House are, if anything,  more radical than the Republicans in the Senate.  Second, there are very few competitive House seats left, for a number of structural reasons including but not limited to safe-seat creation by both parties in the normal course of census-driven redistricting and the mid-season Schmittian redistricting favored as a tactic by the leader of the House Republicans.

Those two considerations mean that no Representative from either party really has any incentive to listen to advocates from the other party, even as a nominal consideration -- and that is most particularly and deliberately the Republican way.  The Republican majority has driven the House procedure into pure one-party ram-it-through, no-questions, no-amendments, no-reading-the-bill rule since taking over in 1994.  Moreover, remember, Tom Delay and Denny Hastert run the House.  Does anyone seriously think that those two give a tinker's damn what anyone other than their donor base and Grover Norquist says? 

In fact, given that "bipartisanship is date rape", I think that having a theoretically bipartisan coalition hurts rather than helps, since it actually tars the Republican blogger effort with the support of liberals (you remember us, we're objectively pro-Islamofascist, America-hating anti-family-values traitors).  Far better for the Republicans to try to work on their Reps to limit their pro-corporate agenda in this one minuscule way (which effort will fail, as I'll explain in a moment) and for the Democrats to separately try to implant spines in their Reps (which may work, but I have my doubts, given the Senate votes).

Next, as to Tunesmith's comment:

regarding scorpion and fox... which of the two parties is taking the greater risk here by participating in the coalition? takes guts for a republican to vehemently and publicly disagree with every single republican in congress. Anyway, I think you're over-romanticizing the scenario. we're hardly seeing any republicans construct elaborate scenarios where democrats have to trust them, only to have the republicans cross them and withdraw, cackling gleefully and rubbing their hands together...

First, I don't think Republican bloggers are taking a risk in opposing this one bill unless they're somehow beholden to the Republican establishment (so maybe the Thune bloggers or other as-yet-undisclosed astroturfers qualify).  For example,  Glenn Reynolds is taking zero risk here.  He has a nice sinecure at a publicly funded University, and near as I can tell, isn't dependent on the Republican party for anything meaningful beyond personal validation.  Until the liberals in this country build up a machine to hunt for scalps the way that the Republican apparatchiks do, Glenn's pretty safe no matter what he does, as are all of the other Republican bloggers with day jobs.  I'll wait to see if someone like Mike Krempasky comes out in a meaningful way against the Bankruptcy Bill, because Krempasky may actually be at some risk (depending on whether you think Republicans need Krempasky more than Krempasky needs Republicans).  Which means I bet he doesn't step up.

Second as far as the Republicans setting up Democrats and then pulling the rug out from under them, it may not be happening in this particular case on this particular issue, but does anyone remember NCLB?  That's pretty much what happened in getting that passed.  In fact, near as I can tell, the Republican leadership and their apparatchiks really only have a few uses for Democrats:  (1) targets for smears and vilification if they don't go along with the Republican agenda and (2) for those few DINOs like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller who are still willing to go along, useful foils.

Last, and most importantly, I think there's no point in making common cause with Republican bloggers on this issue because they have no credibility and no ability to cause change.  The Bankruptcy Bill is a natural outcome of the kinds of people and policies the Republican apparatchiks support, and will continue to support, no matter the outcome of this particular debate.   Is Glenn Reynolds willing to campaign against Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander or John Duncan (assuming Reynolds is in the 2d District of Tennessee) based on this issue?  Yeah, right. 

That's why there is no credible threat from Republican bloggers here.  They'll continue to support Republicans and attack Democrats and liberals, even while those Republicans pursue as a matter of stated policy naked transfers of money and power to corporations and the wealthy.  If you support Jim DeMint or Bill Frist, do you seriously think that they're  going to vote against something which puts the screws to the working class while protecting the interests of the wealthy and corporations?

And let's say that Republicans want to support a different Republican candidate in the primary.  First, who are they going to get who is sufficiently conservative on every other issue, but who wouldn't support this bill or bills just like it? Second, every Republican in Congress is at this point subject to the Republican discipline machine, so no matter who they vote for, they'll get the same Republican.

Look at the rhetoric that's being used to defend the Bankruptcy Bill:  it's all about self-discipline and living with consequences.  Then look at what the Bankruptcy Bill actually does:  loopholes for the wealthy, transfers of money to corporate coffers, and  shifting of risk and cost onto working people.  Does any of that dissonance sound familiar?  It should.  It's 100% pure Republican.  It's Jim DeMint's consumption tax.  It's the demolition of Social Security.  It's No Child Left Behind.  It's the Federalist Society judges that Bush keeps nominating and for whom Bill Frist  wants to destroy the filibuster.

And that rhetoric and those actions are exactly what the Republican apparatchik class will return to supporting immediately after the Bankruptcy Bill passes.  In fact, when any Democrat who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill comes up (except maybe Joe Lieberman), expect the Republican apparatchik class to use that as yet another weapon in attacking those Democrats without one mention of the fact that it is a 100% Republican-policy, Republican-sponsored bill passed in lockstep by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President.

That's what I mean by the fox and the scorpion.  Even if there is no conflict in the immediate matter, there is no common cause with the Republican apparatchik class, unless and until they stop being Republican apparatchiks.

Comments

[eRobin]

In fact, when any Democrat who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill comes up (except maybe Joe Lieberman), expect the Republican apparatchik class to use that as yet another weapon in attacking those Democrats without one mention of the fact that it is a 100% Republican-policy, Republican-sponsored bill passed in lockstep by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President.

This is the money quote because it's not only 100% on target, it's also verifiable. I hope I remember it's here when I want it, which should be as soon as the primaries end.

I will say this about the bi-partisan dealie though - it gives me hope that people are willing to reach out. Doing so on this particular issue is idiocy, but at least people still believe that discussion across the divide is possible.

Read this thread at Roxanne's to see where I'm coming from. We have a long road ahead of us.

[Linkmeister]

As far as I can remember, every bill on which some Democrats compromised in the Senate last session then went into conference and came out with all the amendments the Dems demanded stripped from the bill, giving us what the Republicans wanted all along.

I'd prefer going down honorably in flames than that result.

[Thomas Nephew]

I don't think we disagree about the facts in the House; I think you're right that House Republicans have little incentive to listen to Democrats. In fact, I think that they have little incentive to listen to anyone at all.

And that would be the point. They should have to do their dirty, smug work with lots of people realizing they feel they don't need to care. I think that will cost them a political price, at least it should; that doesn't happen by itself, so I thought I'd try to help. I also think that their citizen supporters should be helped to reflect about who works with them and who works against them -- a "Kansas wake-up call." If some of them wind up thinking "that DemocratFox was more on my side than Tom DeScorpion was," I think it would be worth the effort; 2% is all we need.

But to be honest I have little idea how the so-called "coalition" is doing, I've had too much else to do the last couple of days. So I guess it's a little ridiculous for me to spin this out even this much.

[Taylor]

If you're interested in reading more on the filibuster, check this out: http://freshpolitics.us/?p=234

[tunesmith]

It's a cynical collection of points. If there's a bad bill, you don't oppose it because the Republicans support it. You oppose it because it's a bad bill. The Republican bloggers that are opposing it because of a bad bill are showing more integrity than the folks who oppose bipartisan efforts to stop the bill because it would involve talking to icky Republicans.

You've got a fair amount of blinders up for the rest of your points (equating partisan bloggers with partisan congresscritters, adopting your own straw-man definition of "risk"), but I'll just reiterate that I think efforts to think independently should be encouraged across both sides of the aisle. No one was under any illusions here that one cross-blog recognition of aligned interests was going to stop a bill in its tracks. But it was significant in that it's shown that not everyone subscribes to "My party, right or wrong", even among the most partisan of weblogs. It's encouraging.

[paperwight]

Tunesmith, you fail completely to understand the point of the argument, but that's OK. I've seen the same thing many times among most self-proclaimed moderates and independents who still want to believe that the Republicans and their apparatchiks might act in good faith.

I'll address your points briefly:

1) Cynical would be for me to pack my bags and go home, because almost nothing that a Republican congress does will hurt me as a straight white man with a near-perfect credit score, no debt and the ability to silently and quite profitably serve the corporations the Republicans support. Cynical would be driving the lower middle class to vote based on fear of homosexuals and foreign terror while planning to turn them into debt slaves. Cynical would be claiming to be a "libertarian" or an "idealist" while toeing the Republican party line. Now, I may be realistic about my opposition, but I don't think that makes me cynical. I would never have said "Bipartisanship is date rape" -- that's the single most influential Republican apparatchik and lobbyist there. I didn't make this world -- the Republicans did, and I am trying like hell to unmake their world.

2) I think I've been pretty clear that the Bankruptcy Bill is a bad bill. So, just in case we're not clear, the Bankruptcy Bill is a bad bill. It's an odious rent-seeking by the finance industry, which will destroy many lives in exchange for another percentage point of net profit for some banks. I would think it was a bad bill no matter who supported it. In fact, the reason this whole discussion started was because I was ticked at Diane Feinstein and Joe Lieberman for supporting this bad bill. (Oh, and for the record, both Hawaiian Senators are Democrats, and I found their vote on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling abhorrent.)

3) I don't opposed bipartisan blogger efforts to stop the bill -- if you want to do that, go for it. I just think it's pointless, for the reasons that I explained. I also, as I said, don't think that Republican bloggers will do any good, because they are reliable partisans -- they won't be able to raise a credible threat to the people they're theoretically pissed at. As far as your suggestion that it shows "integrity" for a Republican blogger to deviate from the party line on this one issue, and that I'm not showing integrity by saying it's pointless, well, that's some straw man definition of integrity you've got going there. It's not as if I'm refusing to oppose the bill. I just won't play with people I know will screw me later unless it's absolutely critical that I do so. And in this case, there's no point.

4) I'll stop equating Republican bloggers and Republican politicians when the Republican bloggers stop carrying water and clearly traceable talking points for Republican politicians.

5) How was my definition of risk a straw man? If there's no risk to income, family, health, etc., there's no risk. I started blogging pseudonymously, because I recognize a specific risk to my livelihood associated with my views. If I were independently wealthy or worked exclusively for liberal organizations, or had a tenured position at a university, I would use my own name (I still might someday), because there's no risk to me other than people being pissed. If there's some other meaningful definition of 'risk' that applies to Insty, I'd love to hear it. Actually, since the Powerline guys are corporate lawyers, it might be meaningful if they opposed it, and I see that Trevino at RedState has come out against it, which may entail some actual risk for him.

[tunesmith]

opposing a bipartisan effort because it would make no difference is defensible. opposing a bipartisan effort because it is bipartisan is not. You've shifted your pov.

cynical is also using your belief of the impossibility of bipartisanship as justification for itself.

if your values are to be partisan instead of productive, then your actions have integrity (meaning, aligned to that value). I didn't say you personally didn't have integrity. But if you choose partisanship ahead of productivity, or make them mutually exclusive when they're not, I think your values are screwed up.

if all republicans look alike to you, you've got blinders on.

risk: reputation, standing, credibility to one's peers.

you have an interest in not seeing my points, so I probably won't respond again.

[paperwight]

Y'know, tunesmith, I've been really polite to you. Really polite. Far more polite than I've been to every other self-proclaimed centrist who keeps telling Democrats to work with Republicans and that not all Republicans are the same, etc. etc. But you're the one being nasty with the 'blinders' line, and the insinuations about my values -- that's sad, really, since I've been trying to keep this on a fairly non-personal level, and you're the one who is supposed to be above the fray, reasonable, willing to work with people, etc. etc.

I'm going to say this one more time:

1) I don't actively oppose what you're doing. I think it's a waste of time for all of the reasons I've stated, and I would not encourage liberals Democrats to waste their time with it. If people want to, they can.

2) Where did I say all Republicans look alike? I don't think they all look alike, especially not at the moderate edge of the rank and file. I do think as long as a politician or blogger or talking head or policy wonk (do the Republicans still have those?) is still aligning themselves with the Republican party in its current form, they are owned by people who believe bipartisanship is date rape. I didn't make that world. I fucking hate it. I would far prefer a nice sane world with a nice sane Republican Party actually interested in governing, and Republican talking heads and bloggers interested in conversation instead of hammering the RNC party line 95% of the time no matter how dishonest it is, but that's not the world we have. Every single Democrat who's cooperated with the Republican party has been hung out to dry. Every single one. (Except Zell Miller, who pulled a Judas and sold out the Democrats in his last political act.) So, I don't really see the point of working very closely with anyone who self-identifies as a Republican at this juncture. There is really not much point in working with someone who wants you gutted like a fish.

3) Credibility? Reputation? Standing? What? Those things are not at risk, when the bloggers are doing what they do for free. And I don't see a lot of risk of them blowing those things by opposing this bill, because this bill is one of the smallest possible elements of the Republican agenda. When some of the people you're working with come back and oppose the Republican SSRI demolition plan, or who want to do something to address the radical income inequity in the US let me know. That might actually cause them some problems -- get them thrown out of the club.

4) Tunesmith, I understand your points. I have no idea what you mean that I have "an interest in not seeing them". That sounds like you're accusing me of some kind of ulterior motive. I have none. I merely disagree with your approach, because I've been watching the Republican Party and their apparatchik class for the last several years. And I see very little use in working with them when I could be working to put some spine into Democrats. You want to be nice and bipartisan and try to find some common ground, go for it. The only common ground I've seen is that the Republicans and their apparatchik class want the Democrats dead, and some Democrats are willing to roll over and die.

[Mike Krempasky]

Congrats on wasting several hundred words - not sure how I rated a mention. For the record, I'm too busy helping to lead a bipartisan coalition to stop the Democrats on the FEC from regulating bloggers out of existence. You could read RedState however - and see some bankruptcy bill bashing.

[paperwight]

Krempasky is apparently not too busy to Technorati himself, but he is apparently too busy to read the comments before a drive-by.

As far as the sincerity of his bipartisanship, well, I give you Krempasky:

Atrios is a raging left-wing blogger. He actually hates America. He hates apple pie, he even hates his own mother.

Now Krempasky later says in comments:

It was, "He hates Mom and apple pie and baseball" in the generic sense - as in, careful - this one's complicated, sarcasm and hyperbole.

Ah, yes, he's mastered the playground game of "Whut!? I wuz just kidding! Can't you take a joke?!" He's also mastered the Usenet driveby "You're so wasting your time -- I'm only stopping by to tell you how important I am and how much of a waste of time your efforts are."

Damn, man, how about some original taunts?

And for the record, I have no doubt that if the Republican bloggers could figure out a way to get the FEC to only regulate liberals and Democrats, they'd do it. Remember, we liberals hate mom and apple pie and baseball. We're not really Americans.