Certainly we need to fund the Department of Homeland Security and we need in my view to cut away all the conversation on ICE.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Our divided Congress received two tutorials in bipartisanship in late February. During his Epstein hearing, Bill Clinton gave Republicans a lesson in civility. By obeying their commander in chief, America’s military gave Democrats a lesson in patriotism, which was the subject of David Boies’ op-ed Friday in the Wall Street Journal. In Partisanship on Iran Is Dangerous for America, Boies called out his fellow Democrats for “opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward” a Republican president.
There may be hope for bipartisanship yet; two Democrat senators displayed common sense last week. In response to an Islamist attack on a synagogue in her home state, Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) admitted, “we need to fund the Department of Homeland Security.” And, tiring of his party’s “Jim Crow 2.0” description of the SAVE Act, John Fetterman (D-PA) admitted he could support a new version of the bill (source: The Hill).
If there ever was a time for the GOP to run to daylight, it is during the current partial government shutdown. In spite of Iran threatening America, and Islamists committing terror attacks on our homeland, Democrats won’t fund the Department of Homeland Security unless Republicans adopt “new accountability measures” for ICE.
Partisan petulance must be contagious, because Republicans in the House now threaten to block legislation until Senate Democrats pass the SAVE Act. To be sure, Democrats are to blame, but it is up to Republicans to make bipartisanship esteemed again. Not only is the GOP on the right side of 80-20 issues (e.g. deport criminal illegal aliens), their “friends across the aisle” are not totally aligned with their base. Translation: it’s time to try persuasion.
That’s the take-away from the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute’s latest survey of 2,600 Democrats (spoiler alert: a common-sense governing coalition is actually attainable). The Institute’s granular data belies many things we conservatives assume about the Democrat base; eye-opening findings the GOP can use as a roadmap to a better functioning government – and isn’t that in everyone’s interest?
The best news is that the “Woke Fringe” made up only 11% of Harris-Walz voters, meaning those self-described “communists” and “democratic socialists” are only 5% of the US electorate. Because this bloc is the youngest, it may be a time-bound voting bloc. That’s a good thing because they are the “most conspiratorial” bloc, spending the “most time on the internet” (probably why Jasmine Crocket has an audience).
“Progressives” comprised 37% of Harris-Walz voters. This voting bloc is “reliably left-leaning” and lives disproportionately on the West Coast. Inexplicably, it is also whiter and more suburban than other Democrat voting blocs.
“Moderates” comprised 47% of Harris-Walz voters. This voting bloc is home to center-left Democrats, Independents, and anti-Trump Republicans. Compared to other Democrat voting blocs, it is more demographically diverse, older on average, and the most likely to vote for a non-Democrat (45% say they’ve voted for a Republican presidential candidate).
Realpolitik should drive Congress toward bipartisanship, starting with ignoring the “woke fringe” that dominates social media. That’s because the Institute found the GOP’s youngest voters also “lean hard toward ideological wackiness.” Honestly, why take seriously voting blocs that will shed their “ideological wackiness” with age? Without that distraction, the GOP should focus on three numbers:
73.8% – that’s how many of the last election’s voters were NOT “progressive” or “woke” (the calculus is 100% of Trump-Vance’s 77.3 million voters + 47% of Harris-Walz’s 75 million voters = 112.5 million conservative/moderate voters).
36% – that’s how low President Biden’s voter approval (Gallup) sank because of progressive policies and woke positions. He entered office with 57% voter approval (Gallup) because he campaigned – and was elected – as a “moderate” who would pass “bipartisan” legislation.
18% – that’s how low congressional Democrats’s voter approval (Quinnipiac) registered after the first government funding shutdown.
Back to senators Fetterman and Slotkin. He says he won’t vote for the SAVE Act “in its current state” because “the president is constantly critical on mail-in voting, and that’s ridiculous – it’s safe.” She says she wants to “reform” ICE, which is a far cry from wanting to “abolish” or “defund” ICE. Both come from states that Trump won in 2024. Both have articulated where they differ from other Democrats, so why not start talking about mail-in ballots and reforming ICE?
Because the alternative looks like the current rush to gerrymander every state, which disenfranchises at least a third of the voters in almost every state. Take Texas, where Democrats are 44% of the vote, or Virginia, where Republicans are 46% of the vote. Making so many voters feel their vote does not count is no way to build unity. Gerrymandering is the electoral equivalent of censoring free speech – and look at how that worked out after the 2020 election.
Mike Johnson and John Thune can start by providing cover to moderates. Demonize “Chuck” and “Hakeem” – who serve the political action groups pushing the 20% positions – rather than all “Democrats” because there are enough swing-state Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that 80% of voters want. If this seems naive, it’s only because Congress lacks the will (not the skill).
Back to Bill Clinton, who did his country a solid by stating under oath that he had “no information” that Trump was involved in Epstein’s alleged crimes. When he told lawmakers that Trump’s friendship with Epstein ended before the indictments were known, he allowed House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R-KY) to say Democrat Clinton had “exonerated” Republican Trump; thereby denying Democrats a credible soundbite.
Two weeks later, the former president has still not contradicted Comer’s conclusion, making Mr. Clinton the counterpoint to Democrats like Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer. If you’re not sold on Clinton as a bipartisan, re-consider his congratulatory remarks after the 2024 election:
The American people have voted, and Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. We must remember that what we as citizens do now will make the difference between a nation that moves forward or one that falls back. We need to solve our problems and seize our opportunities together. The future of our country depends on it.
Not bad, especially in comparison to Obama dissing re-elected Trump (“bluster, bumbling, and chaos” and “violence against the truth”). Clinton ran as a centrist and governed like a centrist. Obama ran as a moderate and governed like a woke-liberal. It’s important for GOP leaders to know the difference.
Bipartisanship might not produce perfect legislation or save the GOP’s House majority, but killing the Senate filibuster is not without its warts. 2028 looms large, so why not be the party that worked with Democrats to pass 80-20 legislation? Why not be the party of statesmen like Marco Rubio? Without Trump on the ballot, bipartisanship just might be back in style.