A Failure of Leadership in a Flawed Political Culture
Friday, June 8, 2007
The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's most prominent sponsors. More significantly, it represents a scathing indictment of the political culture of Washington.
The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops and on an increasingly weakened president and his White House team. But together it added up to another example of a polarized political system in which the center could not hold.
The partisan blame game was already at fever pitch as the bill was going down yesterday. But to those far removed from the backrooms of Capitol Hill, what happened will fuel cynicism toward a political system that appears incapable of finding ways to resolve the nation's big challenges.
If Washington cannot produce a solution to the glaring problem of immigration, they will ask, what hope is there for progress on health care, energy independence, or the financial challenges facing Medicare and Social Security? Iraq is another matter entirely.
Voters wanted an immigration deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged as he pulled the measure after 9 last night: "The problem was on the inside of this Senate chamber."
The bill's proponents took the Senate floor after the cloture vote failed and expressed hope that they can work around the impasse. But Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) spoke of the reality of the day. "The United States Senate," he said, "in its long and storied history, today bipartisanly failed the American people. That's plain and simple."
The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work. It is far too early to assess the viability of such a candidate, but it is easy to imagine the immigration impasse finding its way into a television commercial if someone such as New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decides to run.
Twice in two years, Congress has grappled with immigration. The first time, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, but Bush could not persuade members of his own deeply divided party to resolve their disagreements. The Republicans, responding to their conservative base, pushed for a tough border security bill but balked at dealing with the controversial question of how to treat the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
This time the prospects seemed brighter. The November midterm elections changed the balance of power in Washington, with Democrats now in control of the Capitol. The compromise immigration bill in the Senate enjoyed the support of Bush, Senate Democratic leaders and some prominent senators from both parties -- the kind of coalition that many politicians claim to prize. The bipartisan bill still ended up in a heap.
"The reality is most people are just desperate to see a solution. If this goes down, the opposition is not offering an alternative, and that means the problem is still an issue," said Pete Brodnitz, a Democratic pollster. "We're in a period where people are looking to see leadership and progress."
All sides will find reasons to explain away what happened: Democrats blame Republicans for demanding too much and delivering too few votes. Republicans blame Democrats for being unwilling to take their views into account and for opposing details of a guest-worker program. Democrats blame Bush for failing to bring his troops into line. Proponents blame anti-immigration forces for whipping up opposition.
There is truth in all their allegations. That this bill was imperfect is without dispute. Only a few politicians -- Bush and McCain among them -- were strongly vocal in urging passage, but they, too, had reservations about the compromise. House Democratic leaders were tepid in their support, demanding that Republicans bring at least 60 to 70 votes so that freshman Democrats from marginal districts would be able to vote no.