PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Joe Biden was elected, at least in part, because he said he wanted to emphasize bi-partisan action at the federal level.

So far, he has endured almost nothing but criticism from Republicans as he passed a major pandemic relief bill and as he proposed a major “infrastructure” bill – the former with no Republican votes and the latter with no apparent Republican support.

Beneath the surface of the media coverage, several things appear to be true.

• First, Biden is taking initiative to make public policy proposals, which, agree or not, is exactly what the leader of the Executive Branch has the authority to do.
• Second, Congress, especially Republicans are having difficulty responding in ways other than just saying “no,” which, again, is an option for the minority party, but not always the best option.  It would be better if Republicans in Congress recognize the Executive and came up with proposals where middle ground would be possible, assuming, at least initially, that “no” is not always the right answer.  [I add that “no” would be right if the issue boiled down to an ethical or moral prerogative.]
• Third, the Biden Administration is taking the initiative to redefine bi-partisanship.

Put differently, when you get elected as president, you get to make proposals.  I disagreed with many of Donald Trump’s proposals, including the way he talked about them, but he was president and that gave him a platform and a megaphone.

So, now, Biden has the same props.

For the third bullet above, I give credit to the Washington Post and include these excerpts from a story this morning.

“To hear President Biden and his team tell it, a successful bi-partisan bill need not attract a single Republican vote.

“Biden pushed his $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill through the Senate with the support of all 50 Democrats and nary a Republican, yet later declared it a resounding bi-partisan triumph.

“The president and his advisers have also signaled that, while they are planning robust outreach to Republican lawmakers, they are prepared to pass his infrastructure plan on the votes of Democrats alone — and call it a bi-partisan victory.

“’If you looked up ‘bi-partisan’ in the dictionary, I think it would say support from Republicans and Democrats,’ said Anita Dunn, a senior Biden adviser.  ‘It doesn’t say the Republicans have to be in Congress.’

“As the Biden Administration prepares to pursue a broad agenda ranging from infrastructure to immigration to guns, the president and his aides have proffered a definition of bi-partisanship untethered from Washington — pointing to broad public support for many Democratic policies among voters in both parties, as well as Republican governors, mayors and other local officials.

“’Everybody said I had no bi-partisan support,’ Biden said recently in Pittsburgh, referring to the Covid relief package as he unveiled the broad outlines of his infrastructure plan.  ‘The overwhelming bi-partisan support were Republican — registered Republican voters.’”

Now, of course, Congressional Republicans will reject Biden’s definition of bi-partisanship just as they seek to criticize his leadership.

But, for example, on infrastructure, to be taken seriously on the subject, Republicans need a serious response to Biden’s initiative. 

Jennifer Rubin wrote this in the Washington Post last week:

“There is a range of reasonable responses that Republicans could come up with.  But putting forth an unserious, lowball bill with no funding mechanism and without the items Republicans have endorsed in one form or another (e.g., upgrading the electric grids, expanded broadband Internet) will signal that they either cannot produce votes for anything meaningful or that they have not figured out how to be for infrastructure, against deficits and against taxes.

 “…instead of relying on the right-wing talking point that passing the infrastructure package through reconciliation means that Democrats want to stiff the other party, Republicans could also come forward with an alternative that has even minimal support from their party.  While reconciliation would still be needed, they could bring along a handful of Republicans who would have a role in shaping the outcome.  Or do they not even have the votes for that?

“We will know how serious Republicans are when we see a meaningful counteroffer.  Until then, there is no negotiating partner for the White House.”

Presidents get to propose.  Congress gets to dispose.

But the best disposition from Congress – both the majority and minority – is to assess what a president proposes, develop genuine alternatives (not always “no”), and negotiate to find what I like to call the “smart middle ground.”