Bipartisanship: four principles from Greenspan (and one from me)

For anyone who has glanced at googlenews once or twice over the last six years, the following disclosure comes to you as no surprise: the American political system is in disarray. Notwithstanding the importance of issues like Iraq and the recessive economy, Democrats stonewall Republican initiatives, Republicans filibuster Democratic legislation, and words like compromise, practical, and moderate have, to many, become synonymous with weak, disloyal, and even seditious. Indeed, the political climate today is perhaps the epitome of polarized politics. For a system whose efficiency is based on the ability of the various branches of government to reach a consensus via compromise, one wonders where this type of polarized politics is leading us. Certainly no where great.

This raises a good and timely question: how does one effectively work across party lines to create consensus? How does one get bipartisanship to work? While reading Alan Greenspan’s book The Age of Turbulence (a great read) I ventured upon just such an example of bipartisanship that was, as Greenspan says, “a virtuoso demonstration of how to get things done in Washington.”...

The issue was social security. It was running out of money and the matter was politically volatile. Republicans and Democrats were deadlocked on the matter, and yet, it needed addressing. So, Jim Baker, the White House Chief of Staff, called for a bipartisan committee to resolve the issue. From the experience Greenspan discovered four principles to effectively operate across political lines while working towards a compromise. He used these four principles in some form from then on.

(1) Limit the problem—one political issue is often intertwined with a myriad of others. Attempting to resolve an issue and its many offshoots increases the likelihood of irreconcilable disagreements surfacing. In the case of resolving social security in 1981, how to handle the future funding of Medicare was technically part of the debate. But, given the complexity of Medicare, trying to resolve it and Social Security likely meant accomplishing neither. So, the commission agreed to exclude Medicare altogether.

(2) Agree on the problem’s numerical dimensions—gaining a consensus on the depth of a problem clarifies the means of how best to address it. Agreeing on the facts creates that consensus on the depth of the problem. Senator Moynihan put it best perhaps, “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” In the case of social security, once commission members agreed on the numbers it was apparent that long-term shortfall was real and that there were but two options: cut benefits and/or increase revenue. All other 'alternatives' were obvious red herrings. With this clarity, demagoguery virtually disappeared.

(3) Bring everyone along especially the partisan figureheads—it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. Keeping everyone involved avoids fallouts. In this instance, the party figureheads, too, were brought along. In this way they felt comfortable with the committee’s developments and lent their support to its ultimate conclusions.

(4) Once a compromise is reached, stand firm—any amendments that either party attempted to impose was opposed by the commission. Allowing them would unbalance the compromise and endanger the entire agreement. No committee members would let ideologues from their parties create division. They were fully committed to their compromise

To Greenspan’s four principles, I add a fifth: involve the genuine and practical minded politician—with so many egos in politics, sometimes things just go bad. Seasoned veterans capable of fostering hope, commonsense, and goodwill among fellow committee members are difference makers. You know, guys like Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and James Wilson who against all odds and much derision established consensus through uncanny imagination and subtle wit. These type of politicians and this type of politics does lead to great things.