Sen. Snowe's Veto Power & the Cult of Bi-Partisanship

Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican Senator to vote for the health care reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee, now enjoys a virtual veto over the negotiations. Democrats in the Senate and the President himself will likely scuttle their better judgment about any policy disagreements in order to keep Snowe on board. Her vote keeps that all important label "bi-partisan" on the bill.

Bipartisanship isn’t what it used to be. Lyndon Johnson got overwhelming majorities for Medicare and Medicaid, but in those days both parties were far different ideologically from what they are today. Democrats included conservative southern senators. Jacob Javits represented the great state of New York in the U.S. Senate until 1981. Sen. Snowe and her Maine colleague Sen. Susan Collins are the last two Republicans from New England serving in either chamber of Congress. Indeed, Javits’ primary loss in 1980 to Alfonse D’Amato was the harbinger of things to come as both parties became more ideologically driven and more ideologically homogenous.


Foreign policy was also an area where there was broad agreement between the parties through most of the twentieth century. Franklin Roosevelt knew he could not push the United States into World War II, and watched London survive the Blitz alone. After the war, Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenburg joined forces with Harry Truman to craft the policy of containment as the means for fighting communism that became the central policy of the United States until the fall of communism, protestations about "rolling back" communism proving merely rhetorical. Dwight Eisenhower’s defeat of Robert Taft for the GOP nomination in 1952 put the final nail in the coffin of isolationism. Foreign policy bi-partisanship, which was wounded deeply by the Vietnam War, could not survive the end of the Cold War.

As a Democrat, I am not really upset that my party no longer includes conservative segregationists just as I am sure that conservative Republicans do not mourn the fact that liberal Republicans like Javits or, more recently, Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, no longer caucus with their party in Congress. Nor is it necessarily the case that the loss of bi-partisanship is bad for the country: Having more ideologically clear cut politics is not a bad thing per se. That said, in parliamentary democracies, where the lines tend to be more clearly drawn, the concentration of power in the hands of the majority also serves as a caution on the exercise of power: The loyal opposition, sitting opposite, will sooner or later enjoy that concentration of power as well.

The GOP has been more ruthless in exploiting the collapse of the bi-partisan culture, most famously when Congressman Tom Delay engineered a partisan redistricting in Texas even though there had already been a redistricting after the previous census. That showed a lack of reverence for established constitutional procedure that was shocking and should have killed any idea that bi-partisanship was still possible. But, one group of citizens continues to cling to the bi-partisan ideal: independent or unaffiliated voters. These are also the voters least likely to pay close attention to politics and, so, the least likely to have followed a story like Delay’s redistricting shenanigans, still less to draw sensible conclusions from those shenanigans. And, most importantly, independent or unaffiliated voters are the fastest growing group in the electorate and the ones who decide most general elections.

That is why Obama and congressional Democrats are so solicitous of Sen. Snowe. Her imprimatur guarantees that they can lace their speeches with references to "bi-partisan support." Of course, there is one instance in which Snowe’s demands should be resisted. The reform has to work and it has to be seen to work. If the subsidies are insufficient and the mandates enforced on middle class taxpayers anyway, Democrats will pay a huge price at the ballot box whether the bill was passed with Sen. Snowe’s vote or not. I suspect that once reform is enacted, and the GOP’s predictions of catastrophe do not manifest themselves, health care reform will be a net winner for the Democrats. But, they need to ask: How will this look to a family of four making sixty-six thousand dollars per annum? Then, and only then, should they ask the question: How will this look to Olympia Snowe?


Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
9 years ago
I think you are wrong to take the town hall meetings, teabaggers and Beck as potent forces. Public option will be timed into final bill.


The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018