When BiPartisanship Fails
Renee Parsons
Long before I had ever heard of Number 10 of the Federalist Papers which was part of the Founder’s effort to ratify the US Constitution, there was an element of bi partisanship that was always somewhat irksome.
Written in 1787 in the interests of “Safeguards Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” and a well coordinated Federal government, # 10 was written by fourth President of the US and author of the US Constitution, James Madison.
While the Founders were initially non partisan, Madison argued in #10 that ‘factionalism’ was a danger to its democratic roots even with little understanding how partisan politics would ultimately come to dominate the American political movement.
As they became aware of ‘factionalism’ as a dangerous component which encouraged wide spread conflicts between rival parties; thus creating enough dissension to threaten American progress in its efforts to form a ‘more perfect union’.
In the interest of identifying ‘factionalism’ as a positive element to enable ratification of the Constitution, Madison created a lengthy and rather provocative document to publicly address the potential of any self seeking conflict or disagreement.
In what ultimately morphed into a modern day version commonly referred to as bi partisanship, today’s House of Representatives found bi partisanship to be a useful vehicle to adopt what might otherwise be a questionable amendment that House Leadership was very desirous of adopting. Bi partisanship was also frequently touted to rank n file constituents as evidence that their local Elected was on the job.
As the Founders struggled to find unanimity or at least a level of consensus that allowed the Government to function and move forward, differences could not be counted on to be treated with respect as conflicts between rival parties frequently appeared.
A faction may be a number of citizens which may be linked by a common interest in order to accomplish the necessary goal or a faction may be adverse to those goals and use factionalism to eliminate the menace or control its effects.
With the potential re-election of Donald J. Trump perhaps days away, it is not too early to consider how that election could affect the continued existence of the national government’s hundreds of Federal agencies as Elon Musk may consider their DOGE future.
There are at least two significant Federal institutions that have long claimed to be bi partisan to their core, which has provided them with the blessing of a sanctity as they peddle their wares. And both are predominant in today’s 2024 election agenda.
With a bi partisanship definition that suggests support from a melding of “across the aisle” or from both sides of America’s two party political system, bi partisanship offers some semblance of electoral fairness in that both sides are heard from.
Bi partisanship encourages the notion that all points of view have been considered, interpreted to allow all credible points of view considered valid, each from the other, as a plausible whole context is created for public acceptance.
The question arises how does bi partisanship increases American knowledge or awareness if further discussion is foreclosed because bi partisanship has already denied the need for further ideas or discussion.
Both sides of Congress, especially the House, depend on bi partisanship to market an amendment or even promote final passage so that there is little or no further need to repeat the obvious – that all partisan agreement has come together to adopt what may be otherwise, contradictory tenets under one roof.
While ultimately a bi partisan superior force may appear to accept the interests in which an over-bearing majority may appear to represent a well-modulated, common goal; thereby negating the need for further analysis.
At what point does political reality rely on bi partisanship to market its political worth, so that there is less debate, no real consternation that there is great unanimity within the body politic. Or that by virtue of its bi partisanship status, there is no need to relitigate the question or to ponder the fine points as those have already been considered and dismissed in order to present a well considered bi partisan agreement that all Americans may rally around.
No. 10 addressed factionalism as a potential threat to democracy when a citizens with similar concerns may morph into one single minded body like a faction which denies its ability to accept other outside view and becomes myopic in its correct-ness at the expense of another more widespread opinion.
There was something off-putting to think of an organized group of political people who were always in lock-step with each other, despite differences of opinion.
One sterling example of bi partnership is creation of a new federal bureaucracy with the Department of Education in 1976 as a separate entity from its original Department of Health, Education and Welfare roots.
With millions of politically active members and yet maintains a certain level of bipartisanship as if they only come together on issues of mutual interest. As one entity, they continue to flood the country with like-minded members who represent every school district in the country with a unanimity of political opinion – all in the name of friendly bi-partnership.
Today, the nation’s school teacher unions speak with one voice on DEI and transgender related issues within thousands of school districts in the country.
In its first political endorsement ever, federalizing the National Education Association began with the Carter Administration as a powerful political deal made with the largest labor union in the country. With 180 Democratic NEA delegates to the 1976 DNC Convention, Carter received the Convention’s endorsement as the NEA became a major force organizing the Carter 1980 campaign.
By the time the bill creating the DoED passed in Congress, President Carter’s approval rating was at its nadir—below 30 percent—in large part thanks to an international oil and energy crisis contributing to a tanking economy and a national “crisis of confidence.”
A section on the DoED in the Cato Institute’s Handbook for Congress includes a passage about the lukewarm support from Congressional Democrats who were more motivated to keep a Democrat in the White House than to creation of a new Federal bureaucracy:
According to Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal (D-N.Y.), Congress went along with the plan of “not wanting to embarrass the president.” Also, many members of Congress had made promises to teachers in their home districts to support the new department.
Currently, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced H.R. 899, a one-sentence long bill which would eliminate the Department of Education in its entirety by the end of 2018.
***
In addition, the League of Women Voters was founded in 1920 just prior to ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Currently, there are over 700 state and local League of Women Voters (LWV) chapters which also benefit from the non partisan grassroots identity. In 1988, the LWV withdrew its sponsorship of Presidential election debates.
The Leagues are frequently associated as an off-shoot with Democratic agenda items including expansion of voting rights, immigration and climate change. More recently, the LWV has become a persuasive voice for Planned Parenthood and as a major national sponsor for its Constitutional Right to Abortion amendment.
Across the country, LWV supports a state wide amendment to embed the right to abortion within each state’s Constitution; thereby negating the need to respond to changing political climates. In Colorado, the proposed amendment will need a 55% vote to enshrine abortion in its state Constitution.
Whether it be domination of the powerful American school teacher’s union or participation at the heart of the Democratic party organization or the equally influential League of Women Voters cadres across the country: the Democrats achieved a new persistent level of political status.
Each resilient faction, representative as loyal partisans pledging to ‘bi-partisan’ meaning that equal part of partisanship was beyond question as to its neutrality although never questioning the origin of representing both sides of same coin.
The League broadened its services to include ‘health care’ to justify its dubious identity although not a major American health care industry contribution.
In addition, especially active for the upcoming election is the League of Women Voters who are nationally in support of a replica of Colorado’s Amendment 79.
The League is another group of politically elitist women who tend to be Democrats who support abortion rights but have, more recently, with Planned Parenthood offered a safe ‘health care’ option, as they have lost their sense of relating to working class women by a lack of spiritual essence rather than making prudent discriminating choices.