‘Bipartisanship’ – it’s up to the voters — The Longer View

The other day, talking politics with a friend who’s also a state senator, I began pontificating about the Legislature’s “lack of bipartisanship” in recent years.

(Now, “pontificating,” you understand, is one of the guiltless pleasures that Experience offers to replace some of the abilities eroded by Age. As I, ahhh, “mature,” I find that I am able to lapse into pontification faster than a Jonathan Papelbon fastball.)
Anyway, my thesis in this impromptu debate was that Idaho voters are best served when both Republicans and Democrats cooperate to solve Idaho’s problems.
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Bipartisanship – dictionary-defined as “cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties.” Not that raw, unvarnished partisanship where each party scratches and claws like a cornered tiger for 60 or 70 days to impose its philosophical will on the other.
It was ultimately clear, though, that my fervent argument for bipartisanship was not convincing my senator friend. A couple of days later, I idly reflected on that conversation, pondering why such a smart fellow as he clearly could not discern the inherent wisdom of my position.
As I mulled the matter, a vague unease began permeating my thoughts – and then it hit me: The reason was, I was wrong!
In naively advocating a political system where Republicans and Democrats calmly sit down and work hand-in-hand to selflessly address issues of taxation, environment, et al, I was dreaming of a system that never was, never will be. Our political system was not designed, or intended, to function that way.
In our system, we have (at least) two parties with dramatically different ideas about solving society’s significant problems du jour.
True, there are those rare times when an issue is so overwhelming it essentially compels or inspires bipartisanship – reacting to 9-11, for example. There are other, more frequent, issues where answers tend to be fairly non-controversial; then we voters do in fact get that “bipartisanship” we envision.
But key issues tied directly to the core beliefs of each party? Ahhh, those are the ones that cause the messy struggles that voters decry. Democrats passionately believe in one approach to protecting the environment, Republicans another. Republicans view the function and operation of our tax system in one way, Democrats in quite another.
When such litmus-test issues arise, legislators in each party instinctively stampede back to their philosophical home bases, squelching any sophomoric dreams of “bipartisanship.” Then solutions come from a tug-of-war between sharply conflicting ideas, and the party with the most muscle (in Idaho, that’s Republicans, with their one-sided 79-26 legislative majority) usually wins such unequal contests.
That’s actually the way the system should operate, each side adhering firmly to its basic beliefs and principles. It’s the venerable “Theory of Snakes.”
(Old joke: Snake asks Eagle to fly him across the lake. Eagle demurs, saying, “You’ll just bite me when we get out over the water.” Snake argues, “Why in the world would I do that? If I bite you then, we’d both drown!” Reassured, Eagle allows Snake to slither up on his back, and off they fly. Halfway across the water, Snake – yep! – bites Eagle. As the poison seeps into the bird’s system, he asks in amazement, “Now we’re both going to die! Why did you bite me???” “Well,” comes the reply as they plummet toward the water, “because I’m a snake, and that’s what snakes do.”)
So when politicians argue, debate, and – yes – pontificate about their own ideas and solutions, don’t blame them; they’re just doing what politicians do.
That means the first responsibility for inspiring cooperation belongs to someone else, and, to our mutual discomfort, that means “voters” – you and me, us. It’s up to us to vote into office the kind of people who are capable of prioritizing “the good of our state” ahead of narrow party-line concerns.
The importance of voters imposing their will on the make-up of the system is this: The system works best when there’s some basic numerical balance between the two parties (not dead-even as in 1991-92, which is the worst of all possible situations, but when the difference in numbers is a handful of votes either way).
When swinging 5 or 10 votes to your side can make the difference on a legislative issue, then reasonable compromises must be made in order to assemble a winning majority. And the best-balanced answers come from the broad political center – a little bit left of center, a little bit right – not from the extreme wings on either side.
Remember, it was the combination of a Republican legislative majority, counter-balanced by a Democrat governor, that created two laws in the 1970s that have made Idaho a better place to live the past four decades – kindergartens and land-use planning.
If voters want “bipartisanship” in the operation of our political system, it’s up to us to elect the people next Nov. 4 who will in fact “cooperate, agree and compromise” within the overall context of their political philosophies.
Like it or not, voters basically get the kind of political system they deserve.