A bid to build centrism in US politics

The best records of reach-across-the-aisle politicians have been at state and local levels, many experts say. Schwarzenegger has been leading the pack. After several stumbles in his first two years, he appointed a Democrat as his chief of staff last year. He has since made headlines with global warming and healthcare initiatives, prison reform, and a state infrastructure overhaul.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has won sweeping changes in Arizona's Child Protective Services and saw to the funding of full-day kindergarten, teacher raises, and workforce curriculum. Several other mayors and governors in both parties have taken on issues including illegal immigration, energy independence, healthcare, education, and childhood obesity.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), too, is achieving results. As speaker of the California Assembly, he worked with Republicans to create the nation's first assault weapons' ban, a giant urban parks initiative, and the largest school bond measure in state history. As mayor, Mr. Villaraigosa has won a reputation as conciliator in labor, education, and transportation disputes.

"Every single day, local and state leaders are proving that the partisan divide is not so wide," said Villaraigosa at the University of Southern California political conference.

Evidence of a new center in politics is somewhat slim, some say. Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, Governor Napolitano, and others are responding to the political exigencies of the moment – compromise or get nothing done.

"As far as postpartisan politics, is there anything new here?" asks John Pitney, political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. "One can go back decades and find many governors and mayors winning in areas dominated by the opposite party: for example Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay in New York, and many mountain state Democrats. In most cases, they've worked with the opposition party because they had no other choice."

One reason postpartisan ideas have a harder time gaining currency nationally is that those who vote in nominating primaries are more liberal or conservative than the general voting public. Eventual nominees feel beholden to those who get them to office.

"I would argue that many of the likely party nominees for president – especially Hillary Clinton – are almost certain to continue the deep partisan divide that has characterized America through the Clinton and Bush terms," says Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia.

He and others say social issues such as gay rights and abortion remain major sources of conflict nationwide with little room for compromise. The Iraq war and immigration are also polarizing issues.

"At the state level, the issues of education and transportation can be less partisan, and governors get the benefit," says Dr. Sabato. "But when these unifying governors run for president (like the cases of Clinton and Bush), they have to take stands in the culture wars and on matters of war and peace."

Page: 1 | 2