The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
6 — Wednesday, May 11, 2022
BRANDON COWIT
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
VANESSA KIEFER
Editor in Chief
Bipartisanship is dead — so why do
we use the word so often?
I
n politics, the word “bipartisan”
is inescapable. Everywhere you
go and everywhere you look, the
word, the idea and the connotation
of bipartisanship is there. Generally
speaking,
bipartisanship
refers
to members of the two American
political parties working together
to pass legislation or solve problems.
Widely regarded as a boon to our
incredibly
polarized
political
climate, bipartisanship has also been
linked to more effective lawmaking
in Congress. However, the way that
the media portrays bipartisanship is
disastrously flawed.
There
exists
a
plethora
of
legislation that is overtly or covertly
labeled bipartisan. Whether it’s
in the title, or both a Republican
and a Democrat co-sponsor it,
bipartisanship is seen as a key
method
of
winning
legislative
battles. According to Vox, as the
margins in the Senate sit razor-thin
— requiring every Democrat to vote
with the party for a non-bipartisan
bill to pass — bipartisan legislation
has become a way for Congress to
pass some legislation, even if only on
less controversial issues. Countless
times we have seen partisan efforts
thwarted by individuals who feel that
major legislation should be changed
to appeal to a bipartisan audience,
most recently Sen. Joe Manchin’s,
D-W.Va., refusal to support the Build
Back Better Act.
With this being the case, garnering
support
from
Republicans
has
become increasingly important to
the successful passage of legislation
under the Biden administration. The
Senate’s filibuster rule complicates
that goal by requiring 60 votes
for legislation to pass, requiring
at least 10 Republican senators to
support a piece of legislation in the
current Senate. Some Democrats,
frustrated by their inability to pass
major legislation without Republican
support, advocate for the abolition of
the filibuster. This, in turn, angers
pro-filibuster Republicans, further
poisoning bipartisan negotiations.
Because of the importance of
bipartisanship, in recent years, any
bill that receives votes from the
other party is labeled bipartisan,
even if the number of votes is small.
Ranging from high-profile targets to
things that oftentimes fall through
the cracks, from omnibus legislation
to stand-alone bills, “bipartisanship”
is everywhere. One high-profile
example, the crowning achievement
of the Biden administration so far, is
the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act signed into law last year.
Although it was widely regarded
as a bipartisan achievement, the
bill only received 13 out of the 209
Republican votes in the House of
Representatives.
Another congressional measure
seen as a bipartisan achievement
was the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act, which
was included in an omnibus bill
that received only 18 Republican
votes in the Senate and 29 in the
House. Finally, even though only
three Republicans voted to confirm
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the
White House still referred to it as a
“bipartisan confirmation.”
Where should the line be drawn?
What makes something bipartisan?
Does
bipartisan
support
have
to come from both chambers of
Congress? Surely the support of
three Republican senators out of 50
is not enough to make something
bipartisan. The real question is
whether 100 Republican members of
the House, nearly half, would qualify.
Misrepresenting these efforts as
bipartisan diminishes the value of
real, bonafide bipartisan politics, the
likes of which we rarely see in today’s
politics.
Take, for example, Supreme Court
confirmations. Since the start of Bill
Clinton’s presidency, 10 justices have
been confirmed to the high court.
The first of Clinton’s nominees,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an
avowed liberal, received 96 votes
in favor of her confirmation and 3
only votes against. Clinton’s second
nominee, Justice Stephen Breyer
— another liberal — received 87
votes. Chief Justice John Roberts,
nominated by Republican former
President George W. Bush, received
78.
Comparing
these
Justices’
broadly bipartisan confirmations
— despite their obvious ideological
leanings — to the contentious,
narrow confirmations of Justices
Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy
Coney Barrett — who received 53
and 52 votes, respectively — we can
see that partisanship has increased
precipitously.
The
most
straightforward
solution to the discrepancy between
the ideal of bipartisanship and how
it functions practically is to work
against
ever-increasing
political
polarization. It is easy to say
polarization needs to be solved, but
much more difficult to prescribe
solutions.
One way to reduce polarization
is to simply stop giving obviously
partisan pieces of legislation the
misnomer of “bipartisan.” Doing
so sets the bar for bipartisanship
incredibly low. Such a low bar allows
legislators to negotiate less with
the other party — without risking
their ability to call a polarizing bill
“bipartisan.” A collective effort by
media outlets, lawmakers, writers
and the public at large would have
to be made to correct our habits.
However, eliminating the idea of
bipartisanship would be difficult
because, once again, “bipartisan”
legislators are more effective at
passing legislation, and any good
politician wants to be seen as
someone who gets things done.
QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor
An undemocratic system for a
democratic means of government
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist
The social and political
consequences of Elon Musk’s
latest purchase, Twitter
ANNA TRUPIANO
Opinion Columnist
O
n Monday, April 25, 2022,
Twitter agreed to sell its
platform to Elon Musk
for a whopping $44 billion. As the
world’s richest person, Musk owns
an extensive network of companies
including, but not limited to, the
electric car producer, Tesla, and the
aerospace manufacturer, SpaceX.
A few of Musk’s less recognizable
enterprises
are
the
Neuralink
Corporation,
which
works
to
develop
an
implantable
brain-
machine interface, and OpenAI,
an artificial intelligence research
laboratory.
As a social media platform,
Twitter
stands
out
from
the
other
companies
Musk
has
traditionally invested in, which
are typically aimed toward some
sort of technological advancement.
Despite this difference, however,
it seems Musk may actually have a
transformative plan underway for
Twitter.
Musk has spoken at length about
his intentions behind the purchase,
stating that his “strong, intuitive
sense is that having a public platform
that is maximally trusted and broadly
inclusive is extremely important to
the future of civilization.” He has
touched upon Twitter’s potential to
become a free platform for public
debate — as well as his intention to
unlock that potential — but has not
given many details of how he plans
to do so.
During a TED interview, Musk
brought up the issue of free speech
on social media, stating that he
feels that our society needs an all-
encompassing place to speak our
minds “within the bounds of the law,”
and wants Twitter to become that
place.
T
he Electoral College is an
arcane, undemocratic and
unrepresentative
method
of electing presidents. It is a system
in which the will of the majority
is often ignored, where a minority
of voters can and, in the past, has
elected a candidate. Recent elections
have encouraged discussion about
abolishing the Electoral College, and
the topic seems as prevalent as ever.
To address the Electoral College,
the United States should look to a
national popular vote system, the
same system currently used in all
state and congressional elections.
Making such a systemic change
seems impossible. Many assume
a
constitutional
amendment
would be required, which would
certainly never be passed given
large-scale opposition. However, a
little discussed solution called the
National Popular Vote Interstate
Compact would help facilitate a
functional popular vote system
while still technically keeping the
Electoral College. Under the NPVIC,
states would automatically send their
electoral votes to the candidate that
won the popular vote, regardless of
whether the candidate won their
individual state. The Compact would
come into effect when the combined
electoral votes of participating states
exceeds 270.
There
are
numerous
reasons
to support the NPVIC over the
Electoral College system, namely
that it would increase voter turnout
and that an Electoral College system
is unrepresentative of the will of the
people.
Because the Electoral College
is state-centered, and a majority of
states are dominated by one of the two
major political parties, most states’
results are essentially predetermined.
This is why the media often calls
the results of certain states early on
election night, even when far less
than 100% of the votes are in. When
voters are aware that their home state
is overwhelmingly Republican or
Democratic, and there is little-to-no
chance the race would be remotely
close, they have substantially less
incentive to participate.
Read more at michigandaily.com
Read more at michigandaily.com
Read more at michigandaily.com
SAM SCHMITZ
Opinion Columnist