Ezra says we need a working theory of bipartisanship. True! But what form does it take? Right now, we've got a situation where the president is actively reaching out to and courting Republicans, but on the policy-making front bipartisanship is of the Nelson-Collins variety: moderates getting together to lessen proposals not based on any alternate economic theory (that we know of) but instead for symbolic reasons, and all of this just enough to lure three Republican senators on board.
Now the president is going to use his bully pulpit to really push hard on the merits of the stimulus and get some of those reductions and cuts put back in. This may cause some queasy moments for the three Senate Republicans who supported the bill; ultimately, however, I believe enough support will be found to pass the economic stimulus legislation.
What then? The present calculus for Republicans is that obstructionism pays off: If the president gets his program, it will be a political victory for him and, if it works (as I believe it will), it will be a policy victory as well, so there is no value in being part of that. If the GOP can block the bill, they get a political victory and the economy will decline even further, setting the stage for their comeback. As many have observed, it's not really public opinion now that matters, it is public opinion in 2010 and 2012.
But this calculus assumes that Republicans only benefit from Obama's failure. But some of them can also benefit from his success: The president will likely be able to move along some other agenda items, maybe have some mild foreign policy success, etc. Washington will get used to having the Democratic Party set the agenda. At that point, the GOP's incentives could change: Reading the writing on the wall, more and more members could see a role in making their opposition more, well, loyal. They'll realize Obama won't care if they posture on cable news, argue conservative principles, meet with him and argue to his face, and even gain some face-saving amendments, as long as they vote on his agenda. And there will be political hay to be made as the results of that agenda trickle out, with Republicans arguing that the successful part of the stimulus were the tax cuts. Basically, anyone who signed on early will have a chance to claim some credit; assuming that the Democrats will get all the credit for any agenda item they pass with some Republicans may be one assumption too much: After all, they really do need a few Republicans to get through the Senate.
Case in point: Arlen Specter's op-ed in support of the stimulus legislation. Come 2010, if he runs, he will be waving that around like it's nobody's business. True, Pennsylvania is a uniquely blue spot for a Republican, but that's why we should be watching these districts for bipartisanship. But as this shows, it takes Washington a while to figure out exactly what's what. Smart Republicans may recall how successful they were in bringing down Bill Clinton with straight-up opposition to his policies. They'll no doubt have success doing the same with a president who is even more popular and retains larger congressional majorities.
-- Tim Fernholz
