SELECT YOUR VOTE

David Biespiel: The dreamy call for dealmakers is somewhat off the mark. What we need is something more mundane and less crafty, more workhorse than show horse, more Nestor than Odysseus: what we need, simply, are lawmakers. Lawmakers understand that decisions are made by those who show up. Senator Kennedy made sure that he showed up–and that he stayed in the room.Because let’s not confuse dealmaker with centrist. Ted Kennedy was never a centrist. He doesn’t have a record of passing centrist legislation. He has a record of passing progressive legislation with Republican support. The question could be reversed: Why do so few Republican or Democratic legislators feel it’s to their advantage, their party’s advantage, and the nation’s advantage not to give support to legislation crafted by partisan opponents.

I don’t say "political opponents" because there is a difference between partisan and political. In the cynical Country First sort of bipartisanship–and I would say President Obama suffers from this idealistic understanding–it’s believed that legislators can forgo their partisan predispositions and values, forgo their constituents even–and make self-less legislation and legislation uncorrupted by monied interest. Senator Kennedy–and other dealmakers–understand the opposite, that bipartisanship simply means finding points of agreement among common legislative and electoral goals and interests.

In other words, we can scream bloody murder at each other over, say, abortion rights, but we can also calmly strike a deal on regional energy efficiency cooperatives–which is good for your state and mine, your district and mine. What’s lost in the zero-sum partisan and especially partisan-media universe of this era is the following: Democratic government is both an instrument of common good and a catalyst for individual freedom. It’s not one or the other. Both parties should support that ideal as a cornerstone of, well, dealmaking, because the deal is struck between those points of common good and individual freedom on the legislative continuum. When parties slink to the "either/or" realm, they give up on the "both" realm, and you can’t strike a deal with yourself.

Who’s Saying What:  

new TWTR.Widget({
profile: true,
id: ‘twtr-profile-widget’,
loop: true,
width: 600,
height: 150,
theme: {
shell: {
background: ‘#3082af’,
color: ‘#ffffff’
},
tweets: {
background: ‘#ffffff’,
color: ‘#444444′,
links: ‘#1985b5′
}
}
}).render().setProfile(’PoliticoArena’).start();

Tom Korologos: Where have all the deal makers gone?

Frankly and simply: THEY’VE QUIT DRINKING.

In my day during the Nixon-Ford years the hidewaways in the Capitol were filled with five p.m. and beyond open bar sessions where both sides of the aisle cavorted, had a few pops and " CUT DEALS." I was part of those deals on many an occasion.Never mind the Republicans were in the minority during the Nixon-Ford years, there were major trade bills; Vietnam War funding; welfare reform; revenue sharing; confirmations and all kinds of contentious issues which were hammered out in Senator Hugh Scott’s back room; in Secretary of the Senate Stan Kimmitt’s back room; in Senator Jim Eastland’s and Senator Roman Hruska’s back rooms and in other alleyway offices in the Capitol.

Today the everlasting chase for campaign dollars and the next election are always ahead of "hanging out" and simply talking through issues and trying cut a deal. Also, today, I’m afraid comity is gone. Nobody trusts anybody. Republicans don’t trust Democrats and vice versa. Senators don’t trust Congressmen and vice versa. Congress itself doesn’t trust the Executive Branch and vice versa.

The result: No dealmakers and no deals.

Sylvia L. Lovely: Where have all the dealmakers gone? They have all gone the way of a lot of other worthwhile attitudes and mindsets. The Kennedy’s were unique.Ted Kennedy took up the mantle of compassion after his failed attempts at the presidency and after his reckless behavior relegated him to the Senate - which turned out to be the best turn of events for all of us. Over in my neck of the woods, I note in the morning’s Lexington Herald Leader a headline about Eula Hall, an advocate for the poor of Appalaichia - "Kennedy did what he didn’t have to do." By that she meant that she formed a lifelong relationship with him as she showed him the poverty that grips that region even today. His advocacy for the poor demonstrated his constant eye on the prize - compromise is necessary if we are to meet our goals. Today, the internet and news we like to hear and can easily find on our favorite web site or from a talk show host allows and encourages polarization. It is compassion and deep caring that is missing and that drives dealmaking that achieves the goals we seek. We should be asking - where has all the compassion for others gone.

Cesar Conda: Back when I started as a young Senate staffer in the mid-1980s, there were dozens of deal-makers in Congress, true statesman who could be fiercely ideological, but willing and able to forge additive legislative compromises. Liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy teamed up with conservative Sen. Dan Quayle on the Job Partnership Training Act.Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR), and Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) worked together on the historic Tax Reform Act of 1986. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH), and Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) passed landmark deficit-cutting legislation bearing their names. And back then, partisanship ended at the water’s edge when it came to America’s national security.

Today, the deal-makers have almost gone the way of the dinosaur. Those who remain are tightly tethered to their political bases by talk radio on the right and the "netroots"/blogosphere on the left. Additionally, the drawing of politically homogeneous Congressional districts has been a major contributing factor to decline of bipartisanship; Members of Congress are not compelled to reach out beyond their narrow political basses to get re-elected. And President Obama’s "my way or the highway" partisan approach on the stimulus package, health care reform, and cap and trade legislation has only worsened partisan tensions.

Going forward, I believe there are potential bipartisan compromises to be had on immigration, education, tax reform, and entitlement spending, but the lack of deal-makers like Sen. Kennedy who have the courage to buck there ideological bases from time to time makes such compromises highly unlikely.

David Yepsen: There are three reasons we’ve lost dealmakers: redistricting, the media and the Internet. Still, there’s hope.

With sophisticated computers, more and more states have created legislative and congressional districts made to protect incumbents. With a “safe” district, an incumbent doesn’t have to worry about a general election as much as a primary. Who votes in primaries? Only the most zealous party activists.Result: incumbents need to worry more about keeping the activists happy than about the independents and moderates in their district.

Also, those of us who’ve worked – or work - in the media bear some of the blame. The story always goes to the controversial, the conflict and the colorful. A bunch of legislators working out the nuances of legislation on infrastructure just aren’t as (yawn) interesting as a fight over gay rights or immigration. As incumbents seek to pander to their extremes, they provide plenty of grist for a reporter or columnist looking for something to write or air. If journalists only reward the hotheads, and the zealots back home love it - is it any wonder the political dialog gets too caustic to mix?

Finally, all this is fueled by the Internet and modern media technologies and practices. Talking about the deal makers of another era is talking about politicians who didn’t have to deal with bloggers, radio talk show hosts and cableTV opiners.

The good news is political leaders do come together during crisis. Politicians in both parties who joined together to “do something” about the economy last year. Trouble is, they are now getting heat from their extremes for having done it. And remember Tom Daschle and George W. Bush doing a man-hug on the Senate floor after 9-11? Looked great, didn’t it? Trouble is, attack ads were eventually made of the footage.

So come the next crisis, say the collapse of the economy after the world quits loaning us money, we can expect politicians to come together to administer some tough medicine the cure our ills.

They just shouldn’t hug about it in public.

Grover Norquist: Those bemoaning the lack of “dealmakers” in Congress are echoes of the recent whining about the lack of bi-partisanship in Washington.

They both miss the point.For most of the 20th century there were limited government Republicans (Ohio’s Robert Taft, Ronald Reagan) and big government Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt, Maryland’s Mac Mathias, Connecticut’s Weiker) and there were a few limited government Democrats, mostly in the South and West, and big government democrats (Ted Kennedy, FDR, Nancy Pelosi).

All legislation was bi-partisan. Liberal Rs and liberal Ds would vote for a big government bill and conservative Rs and conservative Ds would vote against. Every ideological vote was bi—partisan.

During the political lifetime of Ronald Reagan the two parties sorted themselves out and there are almost no liberal Republicans and there are no conservative Democrats. Oh, sure there are Blue Dogs….those are liberal Democrats stuck in Reagan Republican districts who have to pretend. They give speeches like they were bulldogs, but they vote as Pelosi’s poodles. They all vote with leadership when commanded. How many Ds vote against the union bosses, the trial lawyers or the corrupt big city machines when their vote is needed? None so far.

When the modern Democrat party wishes to increase deficit spending by nine trillion dollars over the next decade, raise taxes on small businesses, grant labor unions the power to grab union dues without tiresome elections and empower trial lawyers to loot American manufacturing and every single Republican in the House and Senate opposes these things—where is the deal to be had?

If Rs wish to move up and Ds wish to move down there is no compromise, no bi-partisan agreement. Someone loses and someone wins.

Had Obama governed as a moderate—betraying his union, trial lawyer and big city machine paymasters—then he could have had bi-partisan legislation as Clinton did on free trade and welfare reform. But Obama supports protectionism and more welfare.

Yousef Munayyer: We once elected statesmen, today we elect politicians. The biggest difference between the two is that the former is interested in collective achievements, whereas the later is interested in re-election.Catalyzing this change over the last half century was a revolution in technology which made sound bites more important than sound judgment. Senator Kennedy may have been the last American statesman we had. Today’s politicians, especially in the health care debate, could learn a thing or two from statesman of the past.

Nolan McCarty: Kennedy the Bipartisan*

After the failure to achieve bipartisan legislation on economic stimulus and health care, the whole conception of bipartisanship is being assailed from across the political spectrum. It is decried as naïve and panglossian, the attempt to actually turn politics into beanbag. Its practitioners are slandered as wobbly-kneed, weak-spined compromisers who would sell all their principles for a few extra votes.But the greatest blow to bipartisanship may be the untimely loss Edward Kennedy. Senator Kennedy’s contribution to bipartisan is absolutely unmatched. He worked with

• John McCain and Alan Simpson on immigration reform
• Nancy Kassebaum on health insurance portability
• Orrin Hatch on state children’s health insurance (SCHIP), AIDs funding, insuring religious freedom and national service
• Chuck Grassley on Medicaid
• Michael Enzi on AIDS funding, international competitiveness, and higher education funding
• Bill Frist on bioterrorism
• Kay Hutchison on cancer detection
• Pete Domenici on mental health
• Judd Gregg on student loan forgiveness
• Richard Lugar on democratization in Latin America
• George Bush on Medicare drug coverage (up to a point) and “No Child Left Behind” educational reforms

This portfolio disproves the notion that bipartisanship is the thing of naifs and the unprincipled. Clearly, Senator Kennedy was neither. The “Lion of the Senate” was a tough politician who never shied away from the rough-n-tumble of politics. Most, importantly he never compromised on the things that really mattered to him such as civil rights or improving the lives of the disadvantaged.
Rather bipartisanship was a tool used to advance that agenda. Perhaps because he was a Kennedy in Massachusetts, his job security allowed him to take the long view of politics that bipartisanship requires. When bipartisanship failed, he could be a partisan’s partisan. But he never burned the bipartisan bridges he would need on the next leg of his journey. Remarkably Kennedy did not settle for working only with moderate Republicans. Two of his favorite collaborators, Orren Hatch and Michael Enzi, are among the staunchest conservatives to serve in the Senate.

There are many important lessons to be learned from Kennedy the Bipartisan. One should not have permanent enemies. Find the common ground and seize it. One need not inflate every small disagreement into partisan warfare. Patience will lead to progress. The Democrats would do well to remember these lessons as their disenchantment with bipartisanship grows.

But the most important lesson may be one for the Republicans. Many of Edward Kennedy’s great successes came when Washington was dominated by the Republicans. His ability to identify common ground and work with the Republicans meant that he continued to be a force regardless of which party controlled the chamber. By emulating his example, rather becoming the Nay Party, Republicans can make important contributions without abandoning their core principles.
*Cross posted from Nolan McCarty’s blog

Greg Dworkin: I think a major concern - on both sides of the aisle - has to be the influence of megabucks from lobbyists that simply don’t want any deals. This corrupting influence is certainly evident in the health reform debate.The amount of money spent to influence the outcome rivals Presidential election numbers, and the lobbyists practically wind up writing the legislation. The Center For Responsive Politics counts lobbying money (all issues) in the billions. Under those circumstances, how are you supposed to make a reasonable deal?
 

Frederick Schauer: Two thoughts that may or may not be related to each other:
First, Kennedy was an effective back-room dealmaker but a front room rhetorically flamboyant partisan whose public comments were not always so civil. Maybe the two are not related.Second, Kennedy had a safe seat and, for decades, no presidential ambitions. Maybe there is a causal relationship here.

Theda Skocpol: Orrin Hatch is pointing to a real problem, but his own party is chiefly responsible for it. The data is clear that it is Republicans who have become increasingly extreme and shrill and unwilling to negotiate compromises in good faith.It is a bit offensive to see the likes of Hatch and McCain trying to suggest that Democrats, in the absence of Kennedy, are responsible for failures of compromises on health care. Let’s get real here. Key Democratic leaders have reached out and out and out, and have delayed dangerously waiting for signs of compromise. Kennedy fought for half a century and never persuaded sufficient Republicans to compromise on truly comprehensive and universal health care. And this time, he sponsored the HELP legislation, which is a fine template for the reforms we need to launch now. If Republicans want to honor his memory, some of them should support that legislation. They certainly should not use their personal friendships with him to blame his absence for their own failure to deal and discuss in good faith. Republicans now are not what they used to be. That is the long and the short of it, and the country is suffering from their extreme and often totally mendacious obstructionism. The fact that some had nice personal ties to Ted Kennedy should not obscure their party’s total refusal to accept any version of universal health care.

Lanny Davis: Ted Kennedy - the missing dealmaker on health care.

The dealmakers are still there - but the chief dealmaker for health care, Ted Kennedy, is gone.

Sen. Kennedy knew how to stand up to my fellow liberals in the Democratic Party at least some of whom seem to prefer to lose if they cannot get "perfect" rather than doing "good" for now.Ask such people on the left of the Democratic Party criticizing passing something "good" but not perfect this year, and with all due respect I’ll bet many have health insurance.

Ted Kennedy would have known when to hold ‘em and then know the best time not to fold ‘em but to do the deal that gets us a good result — substantial change that will fundamentally reform the system and add many more to be insured, require all employees to be covered even with pre-existing conditions, and help retrain inflation in costs.

And he would have had more credibility to take on some outspoken critics of President Obama’s willingness to accept less than the "perfect" on the left of the Democratic Party and challenge them to enact change that helps many but not all rather than preferring defeat that helps no one and makes matter worse.

Bradley A. Blakeman: Not gone to graveyards everyone. There still exists “dealmakers” the problem is they are few and far between and it seems to be a dying art. We appear to be in the era of hyper partisanship. Today its about getting even and settling scores, instead of governing and compromise.There are some “dealmakers” left but their powers have been marginalized. Joe Lieberman is “dealmaker” as is Orrin Hatch, Ben Nelson, and Jon Kyl in the Senate. In the House, Steny Hoyer could be a “dealmaker” if he could get out of the shadow of Nancy Pelosi. If both sides could put country first and accept the balance of power at the time, more would get done with less acrimony. It takes leadership above “deal making” for such changes to occur.

Fred Barbash: Today’s question is in quotes because it’s the headline on an excellent WSJ piece by Gerald Seib written on the occasion of Sen. Kennedy’s death. It reflects also similar questions raised in many of the tributes from both sides of the aisle. See, for example, Orrin Hatch’s POLITICO oped in which he writes:
"When reflecting on my dear friend’s life, my thoughts continue to turn to the future of this great nation. With the loss of such a liberal legislative powerhouse who spoke with conviction for his side of the aisle but who was always willing to look at an issue and find a way to negotiate a bipartisan deal, I fear that Washington has become too bitterly partisan. I hope that Americans in general and Washington politicians in particular will take a lesson from Ted’s life and realize that we must aggressively advocate for our positions but realize that in the end, we have to put aside political pandering, work together and do what is best for America."

Fred Barbash: We invite reader commentary and value it. Please don’t write in "allcaps" or use profanity. And please register here, with our promise that the information is only used in the event we need to authenticate a post.
Thanks for participating.