It is no surprise that President Biden is attempting a two-pronged approach to infrastructure, seeking one bipartisan bill and another partisan one. He has mixed partisanship and bipartisanship his whole political career.
Thus, according to Biden, Sen. Mitt Romney is alternately an honorable man who will never break his word, or a dangerous radical who will put a predominantly African-American audience back in chains. The late John McCain was either an "angry man," or an embodiment of the American story animated by "fairness, honesty, dignity, respect, giving hate no safe harbor."
Some of this surely reflects the heat of the campaign versus the quiet moments afterward, such as George H.W. Bush's friendship with Bill Clinton after calling him a "bozo" on the trail in 1992. But it also reflects the culture of the Senate, where Biden served for 36 years. He is a man who throws sharp partisan elbows in public but good-naturedly tries to cut deals in private.
That's easier to do as a senator than as president, when the whole country is watching. It is made even more complicated by the fact that activist and apparently ascendant wings of the Democratic Party are tired of hearing about process and bipartisanship, preferring instead to fulfill the progressive agenda.
Consider the town hall Biden held in Ohio the same day Senate Republicans dealt a (possibly temporary) setback to the bipartisan infrastructure framework. A Democratic questioner portrayed the party as "held hostage by the utopian need to gain bipartisan support" and asked Biden, "Why is the strategy to abandon the need for bipartisanship not the right answer?" Biden responded by talking about the importance of compromising and keeping your word. Later, Biden agreed that the filibuster was a "relic of Jim Crow" but maintained that without it, "nothing will get done."
This tension bordering on incoherence was present in Biden's inaugural address, in which he both called for ending "this uncivil war that pits red against blue" and framed the political debate as a quest to "defend the truth and to defeat the lies."
Maybe this two-pronged approach can work on infrastructure. It is harder to see it enduring as a coherent governing philosophy.
-
The allegations of Christian genocide in NigeriaThe Explainer West African nation has denied claims from US senator and broadcaster
-
The best sherries to try this autumnThe Week Recommends The warming tipple from sunny Spain is an underrated cold-weather staple
-
London’s best breakfasts and brunchesThe Week Recommends However you like your eggs in the morning, these memorable restaurants have you covered
-
Are inflatable costumes and naked bike rides helping or hurting ICE protests?Talking Points Trump administration efforts to portray Portland and Chicago as dystopian war zones have been met with dancing frogs, bare butts and a growing movement to mock MAGA doomsaying
-
Shutdown: Are Democrats fighting the right battle?Feature Democrats are holding firm on health insurance subsidies as Trump ramps up the pain by freezing funding and vowing to cut more jobs
-
Could Democrats lose the New Jersey governor’s race?Today’s Big Question Democrat Mikie Sherrill stumbles against Republican Jack Ciattarelli
-
Gaza peace deal: why did Trump succeed where Biden failed?Today's Big Question As the first stage of a ceasefire begins, Trump’s unique ‘just-get-it-done’ attitude may have proven pivotal to negotiations
-
‘Every argument has a rational, emotional and rhetorical component’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Why is this government shutdown so consequential?Today's Big Question Federal employee layoffs could be in the thousands
-
Shutdown: Democrats stand firm, at a costFeature With Trump refusing to negotiate, Democrats’ fight over health care could push the government toward a shutdown
-
Trump’s plan for a government shutdown: mass firingsIN THE SPOTLIGHT As lawmakers scramble to avoid a shutdown, the White House is making plans for widespread layoffs that could lead to a permanent federal downsizing
