'Bipartisan cooperation' most definitely “dirty words” from the political past

I remember a moment from just over two decades ago when I overheard then-Gov. Jim Edgar engaging in political chit-chat with one of his aides.

MICHEL: Tried to bring pols together

Their subject? The retirement of long-time Peoria-area Congressman Bob Michel from Capitol Hill – including his post as leader of the House Republican caucus.

THE GIST OF their conversation? Wasn’t it a shame that Michel, who served for 38 years in Congress until his decision to retire following the 1994 election cycle, never got a chance to be Speaker of the House of Representatives?

Sure enough, the era in which Michel was a part of Illinois’ congressional delegation was one in which Democrats had control over the U.S. House the entire time.

Michel was the leader of Republicans for the final 14 years of his time in Congress, and developed a reputation as a person who could reach a deal with the opposition.

Which from his perspective meant he could achieve some goals for his constituents, even though technically he and his supposed allies were in the minority. Bipartisan cooperation as it can work, if everybody is willing to give a little and doesn’t adopt the attitude that political victory means squashing the opposing caucus into dust!

WHICH MOST DEFINITELY is the prevailing attitude of today – one that Republicans brought to bear in Washington right upon Michel’s demise. Because that election cycle in which he retired was the one in which Republicans gained a House of Representatives majority for the first time in decades.

 

TRUMP: Is his presidency the anti-Michel?

Not that anybody believes Michel should have held on for another term or two to be a boss on Capitol Hill. Because it usually is regarded by political observers that it was the change in leadership that helped cause the Republican rise to power.

Because it was the election cycle that resulted in Newt Gingrich becoming something more than just a congressman from Georgia, but a national figure who gave us the “Contract with America” that was a blatantly partisan political document meant to establish the ideals of a rural segment of our nation.

It certainly is a significant part of the path that has led our nation to our current predicament of a president openly hostile toward anyone who doesn’t share his own ideological agenda and more than willing to be vindictive to those not exactly like himself.

GINGRICH: He sides w/ Trump

I REMEMBER MICHEL being replaced in his congressional seat by Ray LaHood, his one-time chief of staff who later became Transportation secretary under President Barack Obama and, it turns out, became one of the few Republicans who rejected the Contract with America concept, and was also one of the few people amongst Republican ideologues who didn’t denounce Michel as a part of the failed concept of cooperation.

As though war and hostilities with the opposition party were the only way to achieve the goals one desired, while also crushing anything other people might want. It certainly isn’t a coincidence that the modern-day Gingrich was one of the few Republicans who openly backed Donald J. Trump’s political aspirations throughout last year’s election cycle.

Michel was a Republican, but he was one that I often heard older Democratic political operatives speak highly of – just because it was possible for things to be accomplished, unlike the age of ranting and raging that was developing then and has matured some two decades later, so to speak, into an obnoxious adulthood.

LaHOOD: At times, carried on Michel's spirit

It is one that I often wonder if it is to blame on my own generation, since it seems that many of the political operatives of today came of age back around this era and aren’t that much older than I am now. Or as Michel himself told the D.C.-based “Roll Call” newspaper in an interview not long ago, “I have to sometimes shake my head and say ‘My God.’ It is a far different place than it was in those days.”

MICHEL, OF COURSE, crops up into my mind on account of his death on Friday at age 93 following a bout with pneumonia. How amenable was he? Consider that for his 90^th birthday, a party managed to include former House speakers of both political persuasions to pay tribute to the man who once tried to bring people together. Both Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., were on the guest list, along with our state’s very own Denny Hastert.

RAUNER: Could he use bipartisanship lessons?

That nature was acknowledged by Gov. Bruce Rauner, who issued his own statement praising Michel’s memory. “Best known for his bipartisan style and working cooperatively with Democrats and Republicans alike, he was beloved by all,” the governor said. Ironic, considering how much trouble the governor has in grasping the concept of bipartisan cooperation.

Perhaps the death of Michel is a moment we can use to reflect upon what has been lost by our own ability as a society to come together and use the government process to try to achieve things on behalf of our society.

In this “Age of Trump,” that seems like such an alien concept – in that the have-nots have to worry about what government intends to do TO them so as to assuage the presidential ego! And the inability to work together stretching into a third year without a state budget.

  -30-

EXTRA: Infuriating the ideologues

I always got a kick out of the presence of Ray LaHood in the cabinet of President Barack Obama -- largely because I knew how much his presence infuriated the conservative ideologues.

LaHOOD: A rarity in partisan politics

LaHood was supposed to be Obama's gesture of bipartisan cooperation when he put together his cabinet for his first term in office. He was, is, and likely always will be, a member of the Republican Party.

AND HE WAS a downstate Illinois presence in what some considered to be Obama's overloaded Chicago influence amongst his top advisers.

But the one-time member of Congress from Peoria who went on to serve as Transportation secretary was never the rigidly ideological type who would appease the conservatives.

Heck, he is a Republican official whom I have actually voted for (during my time working and living in Springfield, Ill., he was my member of Congress, as opposed to Bobby L. Rush now).

But he also was a chief of staff to Robert Michel back in the days when the congressman from Peoria was leader of the entire Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.

OF COURSE, MICHEL was never Speaker of the House of Representatives. He was the long-time minority leader, and it was his retirement that opened up the vacancy that allowed Newt Gingrich of Georgia to become House speaker.

Remember the Contract with America that pushed the ideological  agenda down the throats of the rest of the country? LaHood as a member of Congress thought there were portions that made sense, but others that did not.

He was one of the few Republicans back in that era who didn't sign the deal, and tried to be a little more rational rather than the rigid partisanship that Gingrich tried to enforce.

The result is that I know the ideologues who despised Michel always thought just as little of LaHood.

THAT SENSE OF having to acknowledge that not everyone is just like you, and that those people have just as much a right to expect something of the government as you do. It is an attitude that has been lacking in our political people in recent years.

Which is why I have been pleased with the idea of LaHood in the transportation position. Considering that Chicago, because of its location, is such a transportation hub, it has come across as pleasing that someone who comprehends our Midwest region would have a say in determining federal aid for highway and other transit projects.

But now, LaHood is leaving. He's 67, and it seems would like to retire. Besides, the mid-point of a presidency is usually when a lot of transition takes place (nobody except for Obama himself stays the entire eight years).

So learning that LaHood made it official on Tuesday that he wants to step down isn't a surprise. Particularly since he tossed hints out right after Election Day and Obama's victory last year.

LAHOOD WILL BE missed, even though I'm sure the ideologues will find a way to spew rancid rhetoric and trash his reputation.

Let's just hope that the real majority of our nation have enough sense to see through such nonsense-speak. And let's hope that Obama can come up with a new transportation secretary who can handle himself in as professional a manner as LaHood -- who has referred to himself as one of the highest-ranking Lebanese-American officials in government.

  -30-