by Carl P. Leubsdorf
Veteran Washingtonians scoffed when candidate Joe Biden said he believed many Republican lawmakers were open to a more conciliatory approach than their fierce partisanship of recent years.
Derided by President Donald Trump for his 44 years in Washington, the longtime Delaware senator contended that the lessons from that very experience could enable him to break down those barriers.
Six months into the Biden presidency, that new era hasn’t quite arrived. But there have been at least some encouraging signs of bipartisanship, in both the Senate and the House, thanks both to Biden’s persistence and the reaction to his predecessor’s continuing efforts to sow division.
In the Senate, weeks of painstaking negotiations among 10 senators from both parties and the Biden White House have finally produced a long overdue bipartisan bill to rebuild the nation’s physical infrastructure.
While the $1 trillion measure is far from enactment — resistance from progressive House Democrats poses a real problem — it cleared its initial Senate test with votes from all Democrats and 17 of the 50 Republicans. They included Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others who resisted Trump’s demand to reject the plan.
In addition, McConnell, who vowed to block Biden’s proposals like he fought Barack Obama’s, backed one of the president’s most important initiatives, persuading holdouts to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
A childhood polio survivor, McConnell used leftover campaign funds for ads on 100 Kentucky radio stations calling the vaccines “highly effective” and “a modern medical miracle.”
Partisan acrimony remains on multiple issues from voting rights to immigration. Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy a “moron,” and the GOP leader said, if he becomes speaker, “it will be hard not to hit her” with the gavel.
Still, the Senate’s infrastructure alliance is not the only sign of nascent bipartisanship.
When the House Select Committee on the January 6 insurrection held its first hearing, gripping accounts from Capitol police officers dominated the coverage. But the day’s most significant long-term development was the unified determination among its seven Democrats and two Republicans to pursue that horrific day’s unanswered questions.
In fact, the two GOP members, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney and Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, were the most outspoken in vowing to tackle the factor most fraught with political consequences: Trump’s role in the demonstration-turned-riot that sought to keep Congress from certifying his 2020 election defeat.
“The American people deserve the full and open testimony of every person with knowledge of the planning and preparation for January 6th,” said Cheney, whose outspoken criticism of Trump’s efforts to reverse the election results cost her a GOP leadership post. “We must know what happened here at the Capitol. We must also know what happened every minute of that day in the White House — every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack.”
She focused attention on Trump by asking Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell about the former president’s statement the day was “very loving,” marked by “hugs and kisses” between protesters and police. The Dominican-born officer called that “insulting and demeaning,” adding, “He created the monstrosity. … He egged them to continue fighting.”
Proving that won’t be easy, since committee subpoenas will likely provoke fierce resistance from Trump, former aides and congressional allies that may well end up in court.
Earlier, Pelosi drew some political flak by putting Cheney and Kinzinger on the panel — and rejecting McCarthy’s plan to include two outspoken Trump defenders, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and Indiana Rep. Jim Banks. She conceded excluding the other party’s choices was unprecedented.
Though that excludes pro-Trump Republicans, it may in fact prove wise over the longer term by allowing a united approach to probing one of the seminal events of recent American history and prevent the disruptions Jordan has caused in past proceedings.
In essence, Cheney’s and Kinzinger’s positions reflect the view of Republicans who consider Trump’s actions a threat to democracy that could jeopardize GOP hopes of regaining the presidency, Senate and House in 2022 and 2024.
In a quieter, less confrontational way, the decisions by five Republican senators to work with Democrats and the White House on infrastructure also represent a rejection of Trump’s approach and a recognition they can help their constituents — and their party — by collaborating where possible with Democrats.
“Washington, D.C., is not used to this,” Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman conceded July 25 on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” declaring it not only “the right thing to do for the country, most importantly, but it’s also something that has been the subject of a bipartisan consensus finding process which we ought to do more of in this town.”
During the negotiations, Portman reportedly asked Trump to back the effort since, while president, he too sought to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure.
But the former president rejected his entreaty, denouncing the bipartisan agreement as “a victory for the Biden Administration and Democrats” and “a loser for the USA, a terrible deal, and makes the Republicans look weak, foolish, and dumb.”
That’s the kind of confrontational politics Trump pursued in the White House — and it’s still all too prevalent. But it’s encouraging that prominent Republicans like Rob Portman and Liz Cheney joined Biden in reminding everyone there just might be a better way.
Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Readers may write to him via email at carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com.
