We’ve heard the term “bipartisanship” thrown around quite a few times in the recent past. In short, bipartisanship is the act of working across party lines in order to reach a common goal. These goals can be anything from solving climate change, to working on women’s rights, to fixing an economic disaster.
The underlying idea of bipartisanship is simple: two ideas or outlooks are better than one. Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, the concept of bipartisanship means no matter what your party affiliation, you respect the ideas of others and work together. However, this does not always happen.
Past cases
In the past, bipartisanship wasn’t talked about as if it was a foreign concept. According to USA Today, many politicians learned to work together in order to get things done. For instance, Republican President Ronald Reagan worked with Democrats to bring about Social Security changes, tax reform, and military policies which helped end the Cold War.
Similarly, President Bill Clinton had to operate with opposing houses of Congress in 1994. Despite this, Democrats and Republicans looked as if they were operating in the interest of the people instead of themselves, passing bills like Adoption and Safe Families Act and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
What’s different about today? Why has it become so hard? Despite our access to broad ranges of news and information at warp speed, the reality is we may have a case of narrow vision, failing to see the views from other sides.
The new reality of bipartisanship
In most cases, we want our personal opinion to be the one that goes through to become policy or law. In those cases, we are typically passionate about the issues we want to become universal, clouding our vision of the other side. When this happens, bipartisanship loses its value because we stop caring about the views of the opposing side and can only see the benefit of our own. In addition, when members of opposing parties work together, they are sometimes criticized.
Case in point: After Superstorm Sandy, President Obama met with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in order to visit hurricane victims and evaluate disaster relief. Republican Christie praised Obama on his outstanding support during this time, which during a particularly heated election season, was very refreshing. However, Christie was later criticized by members of his own party for looking like a spoiler. In fact, Rupert Murdoch even noted the governor might be responsible for Obama’s re-election.
So, in the middle of a disaster like Superstorm Sandy when the focus should be on relief and not on party politics, this kind of criticism remove bipartisanship as an option. It takes uncommon principles to maintain a high standard of civility when it means risking your reputation.
What’s the solution?
The answer isn’t easy. There’s no magic wand that can take us back to the era of Reagan or Clinton. The fact is, we have different problems, more opinions, and a population that is becoming increasingly impatient.
However, the solution may lie in a better understanding of our problems, opinions, and the population. How well do uncompromising politicians know their citizens? They may have an overarching viewpoint of what their party wants, but not all party members want the same things. And shouldn’t a representative also represent the citizens who voted against them? This is where constant outreach, letting people voice their opinions, and applying the desires of all constituents to discussions comes in. This way, representatives will be able to represent their citizens better instead of making assumptions or failing to realize opinions change.
In the end, bipartisanship is a realistic endeavor if politicians put the needs of the people first. And knowing what these needs are is the first step to making this happen. The sooner politicians realize this, the sooner they can move forward in a positive and bipartisan light.
What do you think? Do you believe bipartisanship is a realistic endeavor for politicians?