Is bipartisanship even possible? Unpacking a stark takeaway from Elizabeth Warren

ZACH FOTIADIS: One of the most rewarding experiences I’ve had at Georgetown so far this semester was seeing Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren speak live and in-person. The hour-long discussion revolving around the general topic of “leveling the playing field” featured the former presidential candidate passionately expressing her views on issues ranging from voting rights and tax policy to the united nature of humanity. 

There were many memorable moments from the exchange, such as when she proclaimed “we must not gerrymander [minority] voices out of existence!” or when she concluded the event with some sobering anecdotes pertaining to the health struggles of real Americans as an indictment of our nation’s broken healthcare system. One rather frank assertion of her’s caught me most off guard , however. In response to a student question about a potential bipartisan solution to domestic and international education inequality, she answered rather bluntly “I appreciate the question, but you have to ask Republicans that… Show me ten Republican members of the United States Senate who are willing to take U.S. tax dollars and spend them like that.” 

That last line stuck with me long after I had left Gaston Hall that night. While perhaps intended as a semi-cheeky rhetorical jab at the political opposition undermining her party’s legislative agenda, the comment encapsulated a far more profound sentiment in my eyes. It served as a diagnosis of the increasingly regressive nature of partisan politics in 21st Century American democracy. 

Our nation is more politically divided than at any other point in at least the last several decades, evidenced in part by unprecedented levels of congressional gridlock. The signature legislative achievements of the last three presidential administrations, namely Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Biden’s American Rescue Plan, were each passed via a party-line vote. Numerous executive office holders in recent years have just barely acquired Senate confirmation due only to a handful (sometimes less) of opposition party votes or the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. Among the most salient instances of toxic hyperpartisanship has been the historically unparalleled tension involving federal judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court. 

So far, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been the only major bipartisan piece of legislation passed in the 117th Congress. However, as Senator Warren herself pointed out, the bill was forced to pinch every penny in order to avoid raising taxes to accrue the necessary revenue, a prerequisite for any Republican support. She also lamented what she described as “the obstructionism doctrine” of Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republican leadership, accusing them of “opposing [Democrats] at every single inch of the way... forcing us to cut every possible corner to get even procedural business done.” While she may have given a one-sided analysis of the situation, her characterization highlights the roots of much of the dysfunction inhibiting productivity in Washington today. 

Warren’s commentary on the present state of our politics applies beyond simply petty partisan squabbling in the halls of our government. The acrimonious political climate has permeated practically every household. According to data collected by Pew Research Center, Americans are far more polarized than in previous eras. The gap between self-identifying Democrats and Republicans in terms of both values and policy positions has widened dramatically over the past 25 years. Those described as “consistently conservative” and “consistently liberal” have increasingly begun to dominate political advocacy, a concerning trend considering that over a quarter of Democrats and a third of Republicans now view the opposing party as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing.” Further, the rise of gerrymandered congressional districts have helped facilitate this ideological divide by incentivizing candidates to appeal solely to their aggrieved base rather than build bridges among constituencies. 

All this begs the question, is bipartisanship even possible? In this incredibly divided political atmosphere, is there even enough common ground for the opposing sides to forge compromises? Or are their values and worldviews simply destined to clash into perpetuity?

I am far more optimistic than these doomsday assumptions. I believe that far more unites us as a nation than divides us. Most Americans share many of the same goals and visions for society even if they may be split on how best to achieve them. Swing voters and Independents still determine the outcomes of most critical elections in our country, a fact relatively unique among the industrial democracies. It is also important not to excessively bemoan our present predicament so as to blow it out of proportion; however polarized we may feel now pales in comparison to when our nation was once so divided that a Civil War was necessary to reunite it. Periods of divisiveness have come and gone in our over 200-year history, and it may only be a matter of time before we escape this spell of political antagonism.

Warren’s words should serve not solely as a bleak depiction of the ineffectual nature of our politics, but as motivation for the next generation of changemakers. The GU Politics slogan is “public service is a good thing, politics can be too.” Hopefully one of the great undertakings of the future will be making that tagline a reality.

Zach Fotiadis is a staff writer for On the Record originally from Miami, Florida. He is currently a sophomore in the School of Foreign Service.