Blame Reid’s failed leadership for health care deadlock

The Democrats’ looming plan to use reconciliation to force their unpopular version of health care reform through the Senate stands as a testament to Harry Reid’s failed leadership and his unwillingness to work in a bipartisan fashion.

According to senior GOP Senate staffers, Reid has kept his Republican colleagues in the dark, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, about his health care plans and has never made any effort to reach across the aisle and build consensus. Instead, the Senate majority leader has equated bipartisanship with Republicans surrendering their principles in an all or nothing proposition.

This contrasts with what happened during the Clinton years when Democrats worked closely with Republican leaders to craft mutually agreed upon frameworks for key issues such as welfare reform.

Democratic talking points regarding reconciliation point out the Republicans made regular use of the procedure that allows the Senate to expedite consideration of spending measures under limited rules of debate. As most people who have paid close attention to the debate know, Senators cannot filibuster reconciliation bills, and such measures can pass with 51 votes rather than the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster.

But these talking points completely ignore the fact Republicans usually gained some, even modest, Democratic support whenever they passed major legislation using reconciliation.

The 1996 welfare reform bill passed using reconciliation with the support of 25 Democrats, including Reid and now-Vice President Joe Biden.

Republican leaders worked closely with Democrats to get their support for welfare reform, unlike Harry Reid’s health care effort.

Even the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts that passed using reconciliation had more bipartisan support than Reid currently enjoys. According to the Congressional Record, 12 Democrats voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts, and two voted for the 2003 tax cuts, which contrasts with Reid’s inability to get any Republican support for his health care bill.

Reid’s handling of the health care debate shows he must have never read Dale Carnegie’s famous book: “How To Win Friends and Influence People” because his leadership style has served to alienate Republicans by not taking their concerns seriously and arrogantly excluding them. As a result, he has turned them into “The Party of No.”

President Lyndon Johnson, by contrast, struck deals by earning the respect of even his most dire opponents and brokered countless bipartisan deals when he served as Senate majority leader.

A Jan. 22, 1958, Associated Press report shows the stark contrast between Johnson’s abilities and those of his current successor who has chosen to rule the Senate with a partisan clenched fist.

“He’s no firey zealot. He’s a compromiser. In a place of intense differences of opinion such as the Senate, compromise is a practical necessity,” the report said regarding the reason why Johnson was successful as Senate majority leader. “He pays attention to his fellow Senators of both parties … [and] every Senator in this place is indebted to him in some way for a favor or special consideration.”

The report also highlighted the fact Johnson, unlike Reid, spent very little time criticizing Republicans, so he could get things done without their resistance— a play directly out of the Dale Carnegie playbook that emphasizes the need to make even those you disagree with feel like part of the process. As a result, Johnson successfully passed a potentially divisive civil rights legislation without any filibusters.

Reid has himself to blame for the Republicans’ resistance because his authoritarian leadership style and unwillingness to include them in the process has alienated them, unlike Johnson who got things done by including Republicans in key decisions.