Extreme Partisanship vs. Working Together

In campaigns across the country there has been a lot of discussion about the dysfunctionality of Washington and proposed solutions to increase "working across the aisle". Often the question of where this all began has arisen.

Consider the election of Lyndon Johnson. It was a huge landslide for the Democrat with a great deal of help from the African-American electorate and the unions. Republicans were quite concerned about their chances in the next election. To undermine Johnson the records now show Richard Nixon worked behind the scenes to undermine the Vietnam War peace talks. He was probably worried there would be a "breakthrough" at the peace talks in time to make the Democrats very popular in the November elections. Johnson withdrew from the race and stalwart Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the main candidate. Also entering the race was Democrat Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, brother of the slain former president John F. Kennedy. This divided the Democrats, but as John Kennedy had defeated Humphrey in the 1959-60 primary race it was seen by many as most likely Bobby Kennedy would do the same and become the nominee. He was quite charismatic, had the Kennedy aura and was known to be a very good campaigner with youth and great vigor. What Republican could hope to win that race?

At this point in history it's safe to say the change in the country because of the Civil Rights bills Johnson had pushed into law made the African-American vote a big advantage to the Democrats. What were the Republicans to do?

I don't know whose idea it was, but the Republicans devised a "Southern strategy" which was aimed at the White vote, particularly the men's vote. From that time until today the Solid South still votes Republican, unless there is an exceptional person such as Jimmy Carter (who was an unknown when he ran for office in 1975-76) or the charismatic Bill Clinton (who first ran in 1991-92). Another prong of the Republican plan was to undermine the unions, and even today you hear arguments for the Citizens United Court decision based on the need for individuals to be able to give large sums of campaign money to compete with the union giving.

The third prong of the Republican strategy may have come a bit later. I don't recall precisely when it began or who promoted it, but it may have been a fortuitous effect of the Southern Strategy affecting many in the West (the mid-west to the Rocky Mountain areas)  and the rabid support for Arizonan Barry Goldwater. They joined the Southerners and made a strong coalition. The Republicans took advantage of this in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, born in the mid-west, but living in southern California. California has drifted more and more toward the Democrats, but in 1980 the candidacy of Reagan made it possible for them to win. Reagan's first campaign stop was in Philadelphia...Mississippi to win the Southern vote.

Finally, the biggest strategic decision, but one not involving any distinct electoral group (such as southerners or rogue Alaskans or maverick Arizonans) was to make themselves more distinct in the voter's mind from the Democrats -- to give them a clear choice. There may have been some in the Republican party who suggested this in the 1970s, but I think I recall hearing it first in the 1980s. This divided the country, eliminated a need for "working across the aisle" and led to some other major changes.

There has long been a two-sided coin to Republican thinking: should they allow the occasional Liberal Democratic president to get our turn at having a Conservative Right-Wing Republican president or should they try to push the country as a whole to the Right to avoid ever having a Liberal Democratic president, even if it means having more Centrist Democratic presidents and fewer Republican presidents altogether.

I believe the Bush family were the Conservative Right-Wingers who crept into the Republican tent (with Reagan's blessing) to garner support from that part of the Right's electorate. George H. W. Bush managed to present a moderate's image while holding some more radical views. His son George W. Bush didn't have the smooth veneer, but with help from his campaign team they used the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and campaign rhetoric such as calling for a reduction in overseas military bases (believe it or not) to convince the public Dubya was okay. His policies in office were dramatically more radical. Since California had become more Democratic after Reagan it should also have been no surprise their candidate for the presidency in 1999-2000 was from the mid-West and South -- Texas in this case.

The Gore-Bush election of 2000 was the ultimate division of the country. It was decided by one U.S. Supreme Court vote. Some said, "the South has arisen again".

It was also the dream race for the Republicans. They not only defeated a true Liberal (Gore), but didn't have to put up a moderate Republican to win. They had it all: a Conservative Right-Wing presidency, control of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Such power has never really been wielded before in America. And, it was a disaster.

Surprisingly, there were a few instances where Dubya worked across the aisles, but on at least one or two occasions "his" Congress didn't go along with his leadership. Even the radical president wasn't enough for the Republican members of Congress. This wasn't the first indication the Congressional Republicans were moving rapidly to the Right. In 1994 the Republicans got control of the House of Representatives with new Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring he was a revolutionary. But, he too was removed for being too willing to work with Democrats. The Party had clearly moved very far to the Right.

In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and even as he was being inaugurated the Republican Leader of the Republican caucus (the minority now) Sen. Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) was saying his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (in essence to make him Carter II). If anyone had any doubts about the country being divided or any confusion why there was no "working across the aisle" it should have been over that day. Since then McConnell has used the filibuster more than ever before. It became so that years into his term the president still couldn't fill ordinary offices with his own appointees.

That is how it began and why we see such partisan divisiveness today.