Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Jun 12, 2015, 10:23AM

Bipartisanship Isn't the Way You Get Things Done

Clinton's right that the Republicans don't want voting reform.

Rtx1f61u.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Bipartisanship is a long, awkward word that has a cheery ring to it. Who can oppose rational compromise and friendly persuasion? Reaching across the aisle seems like a path to a kinder, gentler America—one in which people of good faith can work towards common goals, rather than slinging slurs and grinding the government to a halt.

So, Richard L. Hasen's advice to Hillary Clinton sounds like moderate reasonableness itself. Writing at Slate, Hasen chides Clinton (gently!) for "politicizing" voting reforms. Clinton has come out strongly in favor of national early voting and automatic universal voter registration, including automatic registration of high school students before they turn 18.

Hasen thinks these ideas are good, and so do I. Democracy should try to include as many citizens as possible. There's little evidence that expanding the vote increases fraud, and every reason to think, given Jim Crow, that restricting the vote can create systemic injustices.

All agreed so far then. But Hasen feels Clinton's strategy for enacting this policy is bad. She isn't compromising, he says. Instead, she's "politicizing" reform. "[The] partisan way she’s framed the issue—by blaming Republicans for all the voting problems—makes it less likely these changes will actually be implemented should she be elected president. Instead, she’s offering red meat to her supporters while alienating the allies she would need to get any reforms enacted." Less red meat, more bipartisanship, is his recommendation.

But is Clinton politicizing the issue? Or, possibly, is it thoroughly politicized already? Yes, Hasen points to some instances of Republican support for electoral reform—but, as he says, Rick Perry and Scott Walker, both running for the Republican nomination, have recently passed restrictive voting laws. Many Republican-controlled states have done likewise. It's pretty clearly a national Republican strategy.

You can argue that the strategy is not as cynical as it appears. Maybe Republicans really are deeply concerned about voter fraud, despite all the evidence that it's a non-issue. Maybe Republicans really believe that only educated voters should be able to get to the polls, and that setting up barriers is therefore reasonable. Or maybe their push for voting restrictions is a cynical ploy designed to disenfranchise minority voters who disproportionately vote for Democrats. The reasoning doesn't matter. The fact is that the Republicans have embraced voter restrictions as a core Republican policy. Which means they've politicized the issue.

Nor is it likely that Clinton could de-politicize it, whatever she does. Remember how Obama put his weight behind a health care reform proposal based on Mitt Romney's Republican plan in Massachusetts? Even Romney had to disavow it when he ran for president, because Republicans don't want to agree with the President on anything. Does Hasen seriously think that if Clinton had moderated her rhetoric, Republicans would suddenly get behind her expansive vision of voting reform? The only way Clinton would’ve had a chance to get the Republican party to support universal registration with any enthusiasm is by coming out strongly against it.

Voting reform isn't going to happen because Republicans are wooed by Clinton's bipartisanship. If voting reform comes, it'll be for the same reason that health care reform came. Which is to say, it'll happen when the Democrats are in a strong enough position to substantially control both the executive and the legislative branch.

In talking about voting reform in partisan, enthusiastic terms, Clinton is putting that issue at the top of the Democratic agenda. When we are able to, she's saying, this is one of the first things we'll do. And it may take a long time; health care reform, even in fragmented, compromised form, took more than a decade. Voting reform may take as long or longer—and may never happen, if other Democratic politicians don't pick up on it over the years. But Clinton's making the case that it's important, and that it should be a defining issue for the party. That doesn't mean that legislation will ever pass. But it seems a more likely strategy than trying to convince the Republicans to sign on to a policy they've already enthusiastically rejected.

—Follow Noah Berlatsky on Twitter: @hoodedu

Discussion
  • Looks like the GOP has seen the demographic trends and decided that "voter fraud" is a major issue to be addressed. Not hard to imagine the frank discussions in the back rooms. It's been a pretty effective strategy too.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't there's a lot of evidence that it's working, in the sense of actually changing any election outcomes. I think it's symbolically important; the U.S. should be trying to encourage more voting, not less. And if we don't do that, there's certainly the possibility that we could end up making bad voting restrictions that will matter down the road.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think it may be working to the extent that most Republicans view as axiomatic that voter fraud is a big problem. That could be the first step towards it then progessing to the point where elections are influenced. One thing that's not axiomatic in the GOP is that the goal should be to get as many eligible voters as possible out to the polls.

    Responses to this comment
  • Right; it's not good for democracy to be recklessly suggesting in a systematic way that voting is dangerous and that our current system is broken.

    Responses to this comment
  • Don't forget there's a lot of voter disinterest. GOP would object, but weekend voting (probably Sat.) might help increase vote. Automatic registration is a terrible idea; treats citizens in infantile manner. I also don't like national early voting: the shape of campaigns can, and often do, change in the last week of an election.

    Responses to this comment
  • Yes, voter disinterest works well for parties who work for corporations rather than the citizens. It allows them to focus on their true constituents.

    Responses to this comment
  • So, you're voting Republican next year?

    Responses to this comment
  • Haha, Russ. I must admit though to being attracted to some of Rand Paul's stances. It's kind of a scary feeling.

    Responses to this comment
  • Okay, Chris, we were having fun and you had it ruin it by writing, "Haha." I thought you were beyond exceedingly dumb Internet shorthand. Next thing, you'll be writing, "Sigh."

    Responses to this comment
  • To be frank, I thought I was avoiding the awful "lol" by using "haha." Disagree that it is an internet thing, cuz I actually say "haha" in conversation to express sarcastic amusement, just like many people do. Never heard anyone say lol though. That would be scary.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't see how automatic registration infantilizes voters. Some people have a lot more trouble getting through bureaucratic hurdles than other folks do, for any number of reasons—lack of transportation options, lack of time, lack of education (illiteracy), or any number of others. Do we want to penalize those people or don't we? Recognizing that putting up barriers is going to keep people out is just common sense.// I'm agnostic on early voting. Again, I'm not really sure there's a lot of evidence that it affects turnout that much either way (though if it could be proved that it did I'd support it, I guess.) I don't really know that it matters that much that it mucks with the dynamics of campaigns. Campaigns have really limited effects on voter behavior, at the Presidential level at least, so it's hard to imagine situations in which the last month of a two year campaign is going to massively change anyone's mind about much of anything (especially since early voters would probably be the more motivated partisan ones anyway, and least likely to change their minds.)

    Responses to this comment
  • Guess you don't remember 2008. Sure, McCain started cratering in late August, but Obama definitely "won it" in the last two months and after early voting began.

    Responses to this comment
  • Explains a lot

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't think that's true about Obama and McCain. I don't think McCain ever had much of a chance. If you've got a link that says otherwise, I'd be happy to see it.

    Responses to this comment
  • No one with Sarah Palin on the ticket ever had any chance at all.

    Responses to this comment
  • I agree with Noah here. Obama was an exciting candidate, the country was sick of Bush (and by extension, the GOP) and Iraq. And, Lehman's collapse in August finished McCain. Early voting or Palin had nothing to do with it.

  • For the first half of September, McCain led half the polls. He didn't start losing the majority of them until late September. Lehman and Palin were definitely factors and if you re-read my comment, I did not say early voting had anything to do with Obama victory. I was just agreeing with you that the shape of campaigns change after early voting begins.

    Responses to this comment
  • Good gravy, Texan, you're putting me in the position of continuing to defend Noah on politics! We rarely sing from the same hymnal. I remember those plus-McCain polls in Sept., but just as Romney rallied after the Denver debate in the polls, I never believed them. Yes, Palin gave him an initial boost, but the market was in such crisis that a lot of people (and donors) who'd normally enjoy the sport of an election had other fish to fry. Absent the financial turmoil, I do think it would've been a VERY tight election, even though McCain ran a crummy campaign.

    Responses to this comment
  • Scary that Palin could provide a boost. Hard to imagine her with her finger on the button, unless you're a fan of global Russian roulette.

    Responses to this comment
  • So, in retrospect, Harry Truman, LBJ, Reagan and Nixon scared you?

    Responses to this comment
  • Here's a piece arguing that investors at least never thought McCain had a chance: http://www.danpink.com/2008/11/chart-of-the-day-did-mccain-ever-have-a-chance/ Here's another saying he didn't. I think the first reason is the most important; Bush lost a couple of wars and presided over a financial meltdown. He was deeply unpopular. Any Republican candidate was going to find that very difficult to overcome: http://www.quora.com/Would-McCain-have-won-with-Lieberman-as-his-running-mate-in-2008-and-if-so-how-would-history-have-changed This piece says polling showed McCain never had a chance of winning; Palin gave him a brief bump, but of course eventually became a liability, if anything. And even with the bump he wasn't in a position to win diddly http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2013/08/for-recordpolling-shows-mccain-had-no.html

    Responses to this comment
  • It's hard to figure people unable to register to vote when they register for so many other things; school, drivers license, health insurance (and the government versions medicaid, welfare, ebt), need ID for signing a lease.... Personally, I intend to vote repub until I die, and dem thereafter.

    Responses to this comment
  • Ironic that when you try to get people to register for a gun they have a conniption and call "gun grabber." These same people want more government regulation of voting though.

    Responses to this comment
  • Good gravy, I say "LOL" in conversation all the time! Sigh.

    Responses to this comment
  • *sigh

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment