Feehery: The limits of bipartisanship

My old boss House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) used to say that the Democrats were fine with bipartisanship as long as Republicans would simply agree with their partisanship. 

Republicans should be reminded of the limits of bipartisanship. Sometimes, you have to bite the bullet and agree to a compromise. That is certainly the case with budget agreements and debt ceilings.   

In the latest debt ceiling compromise, I thought Republicans got more than they should have expected, including flat discretionary spending, expedited permitting reform and no tax increases. 

During the appropriations process, which is a key part of governance, Republicans will have to make compromises or risk alienating the voters. It is far better for them to fight out these agreements in 12 separate bills than in one big omnibus, which is why the House conservative revolt is frustrating for those of us who want to see regular order.   

But while on the fiscal side of the ledger, compromise is essential, on the policy side, it is not.  

After all, on many issues, Congress doesn’t and shouldn’t do much of anything. 

Three questions must be answered in these instances. 

First, is it good policy that will bring more freedom to the American people? 

Second, is it part of a long-term strategy that will help the marketplace grow or instead will it help the government grow? 

Third, whom does it help politically? 

One example: Why are Republicans cooperating with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on any health care legislation? Sanders is a committed democratic socialist and vigorous proponent of government-run health care.   

The Senate Committee Health, Education, Labor and Pensions chairman is playing the long game and he knows that if he can build obstacles on the path to an effective private health care marketplace, while at the same time growing the power and effectiveness of the government to regulate it, he wins.   

Another example? Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-Ohio) cooperation with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) on railroad regulation.   

I understand completely the effort to find scapegoats on the train disaster in East Palestine, Ohio.  

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has made a good punching bag, while Vance and former President Trump have done an excellent job of showing the people of that town that they were sympathetic to their plight while the Biden administration was out to lunch.   

But that doesn’t mean Vance should work with his Democratic counterpart to pass legislation that has long been a top priority of Big Labor and would do nothing to improve rail safety in the United States.  

The key issue in this rail safety legislation is a proposed federal mandate to double the crew size of the average freight rail train, which has long been a key demand of the rail labor unions in contract negotiations, despite evidence that it would make the freight rail system any safer. 

I am not a rail safety expert, but I know a few things about politics. And from what I can tell, giving this political victory to Brown in an election cycle when he faces the voters would be a mistake, especially because it would be a victory on his political terms, pleasing his biggest allies. 

A counter-example: In the debt limit negotiations, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and congressional Republicans secured the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a clear political victory for Manchin but also good policy that will make America more energy secure.

Including that provision in the compromise was a bitter pill for congressional Democrats to swallow, which made its inclusion even sweeter for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and the GOP. 

This is the way to make policy advancements for congressional Republicans: If it moves the country forward, if it brings more liberty to the American people and if it angers the progressive coalition, then it is worth doing. If, on the other hand, Republicans make compromises that help the Democrats politically, do nothing to bring more freedom to the American people and make the progressive coalition happy, it is probably not worth doing. 

For congressional Republicans, these guidelines should serve as a proper limit on bipartisanship. 

Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy, blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).