The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. that advocates for bipartisan solutions to policy issues. The organization was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell. The BPC aims to combine ideas from both parties to address key policy challenges facing the nation. However, some have questioned whether the organization truly lives up to its bipartisan mission. In this article, we will examine the evidence on both sides of this debate.
Arguments That the BPC Is Truly Bipartisan
Several factors suggest the BPC does sincerely pursue bipartisan policy solutions:
- The organization was founded by leaders from both major parties who shared a commitment to overcoming partisan divides.
- The BPC is led by Jason Grumet, who previously worked for the Clinton administration but also has Republican ties.
- The board of directors includes an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
- BPC policy proposals often incorporate ideas from both sides of the political spectrum.
- The tone of the organization’s reports and analysis is measured rather than partisan.
Supporters argue that the BPC’s track record demonstrates a genuine dedication to its bipartisan mission. They point to BPC proposals on issues like health care, immigration, and energy that attract support from both Democrats and Republicans. The organization has had some success in shaping bipartisan legislation, such as the Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors that was established in 2007.
Criticisms That the BPC Favors Centrist Policy Positions
However, critics argue that while the BPC includes both Democrats and Republicans, its policy positions consistently favor centrist, “split the difference” solutions rather than a true left-right compromise. Specific criticisms include:
- The BPC often advocates for more limited government programs and regulations than many Democrats prefer.
- The organization tends to favor more modest spending levels than many liberals advocate.
- On issues like health care, the BPC has opposed single-payer approaches supported by progressives.
- The BPC’s immigration reform plan ruled out a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, angering immigrant advocates.
- The organization’s energy plan supports fossil fuels and nuclear energy more than environmentalists would prefer.
These critics argue that by consistently staking out “middle of the road” positions, the BPC ends up skewing the political debate rightward. They believe the organization’s views align more closely with moderate Republicans than the center-left of the Democratic party.
Analyzing the BPC’s Policy Positions and Impact
To judge whether the BPC lives up to its bipartisan aims, we need to delve deeper into its recent policy work and examine whom it aligns with or against on major issues.
The BPC’s Health Care Plans
Health care has been a major focus of the BPC’s work over the past decade. In 2009, the organization released a proposal to achieve universal coverage while maintaining a role for private insurers and avoiding a single-payer system. Progressive critics argued it was unduly incremental. However, the plan did include a public insurance option, which centrist Democrats and most Republicans opposed at the time.
More recently, the BPC has advocated fixing rather than replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In 2017, it proposed a bipartisan stabilization plan that would fund cost-sharing subsidies and create a stability fund to lower premiums. This put the BPC at odds with Republicans aiming to repeal the ACA but aligned them with most congressional Democrats.
BPC Position | Aligned With | Against |
---|---|---|
2009 universal coverage plan with public option | Most Democrats | Most Republicans, centrist Democrats |
2017 ACA stabilization plan | Most Democrats | Most Republicans |
This record suggests the BPC’s health proposals align reasonably well with the center-left of the Democratic party, staying within the ACA framework rather than pushing for more sweeping reform.
The BPC’s Immigration Reform Plans
On immigration, the BPC has backed comprehensive reform plans that include enhanced border security, employment verification systems, changes to the legal immigration system, and a path to citizenship for most unauthorized immigrants already in the U.S.
In 2009, the organization’s proposal restricted the path to citizenship more than some immigrant advocates preferred by excluding those who had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors. Nonetheless, it still faced opposition from many Republicans who disagreed with allowing any unauthorized immigrants to become citizens.
More recently, the BPC has continued advocating legislation that balances border security and enforcement measures with a path to citizenship for most unauthorized immigrants. This places them in line with most Democrats and the more moderate factions of the GOP on immigration reform.
BPC Position | Aligned With | Against |
---|---|---|
2009 plan with path to citizenship | Most Democrats, moderate Republicans | Immigration advocates, conservative Republicans |
Recent plans balancing security with path to citizenship | Most Democrats, moderate Republicans | Conservative Republicans |
The BPC’s Energy and Environmental Plans
The BPC’s energy and environmental proposals have tended to align with moderate, “all of the above” approaches rather than strong pro-green policies. For example:
- A 2009 BPC energy plan emphasized increasing fossil fuel production and nuclear power in addition to support for renewables and energy efficiency.
- A 2019 BPC carbon pricing proposal relied more on taxpayer rebates to compensate for higher energy costs rather than aggressive decarbonization mandates.
- BPC recommendations have consistently backed funding carbon capture technology to enable continued use of fossil fuels.
While the BPC plans incorporate mechanisms to reduce emissions, environmental groups have critiqued them as insufficient to drive the transition away from fossil fuels they believe necessary. The plans tend to align more closely with moderate Republicans and the fossil fuel industry than progressive Democrats.
BPC Position | Aligned With | Against |
---|---|---|
“All of the above” energy plans | Moderate Republicans, fossil fuel industry | Progressive Democrats, environmental groups |
Carbon pricing with rebates over mandates | Moderate Republicans | Progressive Democrats, environmental groups |
Funding carbon capture technology | Moderate Republicans, fossil fuel industry | Environmental groups |
Evaluation of the BPC’s Bipartisan Record
Based on this examination, it seems fair to say the Bipartisan Policy Center lives up to its name in some respects but not others. Key observations include:
- The BPC genuinely incorporates ideas and support from both parties, rather than simply being a masked advocate for one side.
- However, its policy positions consistently skew toward centrist or center-right solutions rather than a balanced midpoint between liberal and conservative ideas.
- The BPC often alienates progressive advocacy groups in pursuit of compromise positions.
- It more frequently aligns with moderate Republicans than progressive Democrats on issues like energy, environment, and economic policy.
In essence, the BPC practices bipartisanship but within a relatively narrow band of centrist opinion. It brings Democrats and Republicans together, but generally on solutions palatable to the center-right rather than appealing equally to both ends of the political spectrum.
Whether this constitutes genuine bipartisanship depends on one’s perspective. Given the polarization of our current politics, building cross-party support for any common solutions is an achievement. But for those on the left who feel the BPC tilts the entire debate rightward, its version of bipartisanship leaves much to be desired. As usual, there are good-faith arguments on both sides.
Conclusion
The Bipartisan Policy Center lives up to its name as an organization that incorporates perspectives and garners support from both major parties. However, most of its major policy proposals align more closely with the center and center-right than with progressive viewpoints. The BPC offers perhaps the best bipartisanship that is possible in our current partisan era. But its version of cross-party compromise skews toward “splitting the difference” centrism rather than a genuine balance between left and right. Reasonable people can debate whether this constitutes true bipartisanship, but the BPC’s impact remains significant as one of the leading cross-party think tanks in Washington.