Can’t we all be unified? No, but perhaps we could compromise

The word ‘unity’ is being emphasized by leaders on all sides. How do we get there?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Probably not since the Civil War have the themes “divisiveness” and “need for unity” been mentioned so often by Americans of both parties. President Joseph Biden, in his inaugural address, Gov. Spencer Cox, in his State of the State, and many other politicians have begged for unity and less divisiveness. We assess the prospects for peace and love in our state and nation.

The U.S. House of Representatives is almost evenly divided. The Senate is split 50-50, with the vice president poised to break tie votes. Senators from both parties have struggled just to develop a basic operating agreement. How does divided government impact Utah’s congressional delegation?

Pignanelli: “In a divided government, you can’t just say, ‘It’s my way or the highway.’” — Jeb Bush

Asking Americans not to engage in a political argument is akin to demanding Italians forsake wine and pasta — an impossible endeavor. (Of course, my ethnic ancestors pioneered animated dissension).

The silver lining of such equally divided bodies is that little good happens without compromise. Passing legislation along party lines is difficult because members that represent swing districts will often stray. Therefore, coalitions are required and better policies result. For example, had Democrats been forced to coordinate with Republicans in 2009-10 a broadly acceptable version of Obamacare would have transpired.

Normally, a Republican congressional delegation would be in the political wilderness of a federal government controlled by Democrats. But “Utah realpolitik” is a real possibility. Sen. Mitt Romney is a deal-maker respected on both sides. Congressman John Curtis established his bona fides on controversial environmental issues. Impeaching a former president is a stretch for many. Sen. Mike Lee’s constitutional prowess could be instrumental in developing a resolution that satisfies both sides.

The “Utah Way” of practicality and common sense offers hope on key issues. But the arguments will not stop — just ask my Italian relatives.

Webb: As I’ve written previously, I think calls for unity are silly. We can find some unity on broad values (like violence is wrong and we should all love our country), but we’ll never find unity on the tough political issues of the day. For too many politicians, unity means, “You surrender to me.”

Instead of unity, we should be calling for compromise, deal-making and meeting halfway. Biden mentioned unity dozens of times in his big speech, but never once mentioned compromise. A closely divided government could still solve some big problems if both sides would actually give a little.

Any sense of unity and willingness to compromise is already being severely tested between Utah’s delegation and the Biden administration. Biden’s temporary suspension of new oil and gas leasing on federal land (that means two-thirds of Utah), and his executive order to review Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monument boundaries could mean a war against Utah, or it could mean an opportunity to negotiate and compromise.

We’ll soon find out if the Biden administration is willing to work with Utah leaders and find solutions both sides can support — or if it will shove us aside and do as it pleases. There will be many more opportunities for compromise — or cutthroat conflict.

Gov. Cox told legislators he will likely veto more bills than his predecessor but wants to remain friends. Is he laying down the gauntlet or just warning legislators of a different approach?

Pignanelli: Cox and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are former lawmakers and understand the political dynamics between the branches. They know the occasional rejection of legislation boosts gubernatorial potency. Also, the intended audience for this message was not just lawmakers but the media and public. He is reminding us a veto is not a breakdown of government but rather a natural, and needed, course of affairs. In other words, don’t freak out when he vetoes something.

Webb: Watch for some battles over emergency powers of the executive branch. Each side has strong feelings, but the fight will be tame compared to the nasty, personal battles in Washington, D.C. Some tension between the branches is expected and healthy, and the disagreements won’t prevent collaborative efforts at solving Utah’s problems.

Do Utahns care about the clashes between federal and state officials?

Pignanelli: There is a vast difference between consensus, unity of purpose, and divisiveness. Utahns want officials working together to solve the big problems (i.e. pandemic, economic downturns, defending the country against the terrorists, etc.). While polls reveal a disturbing trend toward acrimony, the real concern is the heat of the rhetoric, not the existence of differences in opinions. No one expects or wants a consensus on all the issues. Democracy needs the give-and-take.

Webb: A healthy federal system means states will, and should, push back against an encroaching federal government. The problem is that states have mostly surrendered to federal coercion and bribery, despite most states being better managed and more in touch with the needs of their citizens. We don’t want revolt and anarchy, but states need some reasonable tools to stand up for their rights. Compromise and better governance would result.