Bipartisanship: A New Winning Issue

I was surprised when Frank Lunz’ focus group showed that the best line of the evening’s debate by either candidate was Governor Romney’s rendition of how he worked with Democrats in Massachusetts and will do so as president. But it makes a great deal of sense that this line would resonate.

While we professionals are trying to win the war of Dems vs. Reps and Blue vs. Red, the voters just want the war to end and the parties to come to an agreement — guided by the verdict they will deliver on Election Day. Ending this toxic division has been a key national goal of American voters ever since the Clinton impeachment, the government shutdown, and the debt limit fight. Indeed, the core of Clinton’s current popularity is that he did bridge the gap and pass bipartisan legislation to balance the budget and reform welfare.

Obama’s appeal was largely based on his promise to heal these divisions. But it is self evident that they have gotten worse during his term. Any promise now to heal the breech would be seen as fraudulent.

But Romney’s record in Massachusetts offers some hope that he might succeed where Obama has failed.

Stressing this theme in ads has the additional advantage of assuring moderate Democrats and Independents that Romney would not be manipulated by the ever-feared extreme Republican right. It would remind them that he did pass positive, constructive legislation on health care and education by working with the Democratic legislature. This will give great comfort to swing voters.

The Romney campaign should follow its candidate’s initiative and begin to stress this bipartisan theme in their advertising. By doing so, they will also make it harder for Obama to sustain his negative campaign. He will be seen as the divisive one and Romney as the healer.

The Romney campaign should also do ads which revert to the basic theme of more government vs. less V. All voters — Democrats or Republicans — agree that:

• If Obama is re-elected government will grow and so will spending and borrowing.

• That Romney would probably grow it less or maybe even spend less and shrink it.

Everybody agrees on these points. They disagree about the wisdom of each course of action. But the American voter agrees with the Republicans and Romney much more than he sides with the Democrats and Obama over these questions.

And these are the key questions over which our politics has been divided for the past four years. By impartially articulating these differences, Romney can make the election about big things like the size of government spending and borrowing.

OK. We have the Democrats who want to steal other people’s money and kill babies until the population of the world is down to 30 million people. And, eventually, they’re going to have to kill older and older babies to reach that goal. How do you compromise with thieves and psychopaths?
Nope, the Democrats are my enemies. I want them to lose every election and disband their party. I used to be a Democrat. I grew up in a union household. I know my enemies and how they do business. A thief wants your money and a psychopath wants you and your family gone. What kind of compromise should we make? Just steal half my money and only kill half my family? They’ll eventually want all your money and all your family gone. They KNOW that they’re smarter than everybody else.

It’s important to remember what existed, and what did not, as institutions in the time of the founding fathers.

To start with, while British political parties had been around since the 17th Century, the US only had factions by the time of the constitution, so there is no mention of parties in the document. It can be argued even today that political parties have no constitutional authority, but they also have no direct constitutional restrictions of their activities outside of those that apply to everyone else.

Though they had the offices of Sheriff, Justice, Constable, Marshals, Night Watch and Conservators of the Peace, law enforcement was very fragmented, and citizens were expected to pitch in when a posse or the militia was needed. The big exclusion was the use of the military in police actions.

Highly regimented paramilitary and municipal police, as exist today, also lie generally outside of the constitution, excepting the Bill of Rights.

George Washington was America’s first great spymaster, controlling a large and effective network.

The founding fathers were also far from armchair philosophers about the harsh reality of war. The French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion were incredibly nasty, no quarters savagery at times.

The British in the 18th Century put a lot of prisoners on as many as 40 prison ships or gave them transportation. It gets stranger:

“Under English law, any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In practice, the prosecutor was usually the victim. It was up to him to file charges with the local magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury, and, if the grand jury found a true bill, provide evidence for the trial. If the victim of a crime won his case, the criminal was most often hanged or transported.

“Offenses fell into three categories according to their possible punishments: minor offenses, clergyable felonies, and non-clergyable felonies. Minor offenses such as petty larceny-theft of goods worth less than a shilling-were typically punished with punishments designed largely to shame the offender, such as public whipping or exposure in the stocks.

“The distinction between the second and third categories was whether or not offenders could claim benefit of clergy. Benefit of clergy originated as a legal rule permitting clerics charged with capital offenses to have their cases transferred to a church court, which did not impose capital punishment.

“By the 18th century, the application of the rule had changed in two important ways: The definition of clergy had been broadened to include anyone who could read (and, after 1706, any defendant whether or not he could read), and the church courts had lost their role in dealing with serious crimes. The result in many cases was that a defendant convicted of a capital felony could plead his clergy, be branded on the thumb, and be sent home.

“Many felons did not bring enough return to pay the merchant’s cost of transportation. The result was that felons who had been sentenced to transportation but whom nobody was willing to transport accumulated in jails intended as temporary holding places. After 1718, merchants were paid three shillings a head to transport.

“Still, the accumulation of prisoners waiting for transport created the idea of prisons themselves as punishment instead of just holding areas.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.