On Being Partisan - New York Times
The New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 26, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
On Being Partisan
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were
different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that
"politics has
become so bitter and partisan" - which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why "we can't tackle the big
problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."
Um,
no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to
tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes
well,
we'll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship - but that will be the end
of the story, not the beginning.

Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another
Dwight Eisenhower.

You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn't the result of a
random outbreak of bad manners. It's a symptom of deeper factors - mainly
the growing
polarization of our economy. And history says that we'll see a return to
bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed.

After all, American politics has been nasty in the past. Before the New
Deal, America was a nation with a vast gap between the rich and everyone
else, and
this gap was reflected in a sharp political divide. The Republican Party, in
effect, represented the interests of the economic elite, and the Democratic
Party, in an often confused way, represented the populist alternative.

In that divided political system, the Democrats probably came much closer to
representing the interests of the typical American. But the G.O.P.'s
advantage
in money, and the superior organization that money bought, usually allowed
it to dominate national politics. "I am not a member of any organized
party,"
Will Rogers said. "I am a Democrat."

Then came the New Deal. I urge Mr. Obama - and everyone else who thinks that
good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics - to read the
speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a
president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions.

For the fact is that F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created the
institutions - Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive
taxation
and beyond - that helped alleviate inequality. And he didn't shy away from
confrontation.

"We had to struggle," he declared in 1936, "with the old enemies of peace -
business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class
antagonism,
sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have
these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They
are
unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."

It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class
warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by "modern Republicans" who accepted
the
New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail.

The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New
Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the
pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the
Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic
elite.
The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have
been attempts to undo F.D.R.'s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to
privatizing
Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P.
and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy.

What about the smear campaigns, like Karl Rove's 2005 declaration that after
9/11 liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"?
Well, they're reminiscent of the vicious anti-Catholic propaganda used to
defeat Al Smith in 1928: smear tactics are what a well-organized,
well-financed
party with a fundamentally unpopular domestic agenda uses to change the
subject.

So am I calling for partisanship for its own sake? Certainly not. By all
means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other
party:
the Social Security Act of 1935 received 77 Republican votes in the House,
about the same as the number of Republicans who recently voted for a minimum
wage increase.

But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal,
especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large
bloc on
the right - and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it.

Copyright 2007
The New York Times Company

Posted by Miriam V.