Romney’s exit from the Senate marks the end of bipartisanship that Washington desperately needs – Marin Independent Journal

Mitt Romney gave his farewell speech to the US Senate in early December. It is no exaggeration to say that it marked the end of an era.

Romney’s time in public service, spanning well over two decades, will be considered historic – he is the only American to serve as governor of one state and senator of another, as well as the presidential nominee of a major political party. But perhaps more importantly, Romney’s departure, like others recently, marks the end of a period when bipartisanship and dealmaking were valued or even sought in Washington.

What we are left with is a Senate—and politics in general—that looks too much like the House of Representatives: fundamentally partisan and majoritarian, less interested in making deals or passing important legislation, and far more focused on showmanship than craftsmanship.

Consider more departures from the Senate, including Democrats Joe Manchin III and Kyrsten Sinema, who are finishing their terms this year. And in the Republican Party, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri, who left the chamber when their terms expired in 2023. Republicans stuck to their conservative principles but welcomed working opportunities with lawmakers from across the aisle. There are numerous examples of similar recent departures from the House of Representatives.

Romney’s typically gracious speech acknowledged that his significant achievements were based on partnerships with others and that “his life’s work was a group affair.” In the Senate, he has been a linchpin for bipartisan legislation on issues as diverse as election reform, pandemic economic relief, marriage rights and infrastructure development. As governor of Massachusetts, he excelled in fiscal conservatism and reform. And as a presidential candidate, he warned early about the dangers of Vladimir Putin and a resurgent Russia and announced the increasingly tense relations between the USA and the People’s Republic of China.

But of all his many accomplishments, it is clear that there is none he is prouder of than his efforts to make affordable health insurance available to every Massachusetts resident. In fact, elements of “Romneycare” found their way into Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and the Massachusetts law was the first major stroke of bipartisanship in Romney’s public service career. It attracted overwhelming support from state lawmakers of both parties, with the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy — against whom Romney ran (and lost) for the U.S. Senate in 1994 — standing by his side when he signed the state’s health care reform law in 2009 April 2006.

The irony is that Romney’s bold bipartisan deal on health care may have signaled the beginning of the end of the era in which collaboration advanced political careers. The Tea Party movement burst onto the political scene in 2009 and, just a few years later, heralded a period in which Romney’s signature achievement as governor would become a failure in his presidential campaign as Washington battled over Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act had obvious structural similarities to Romney’s reforms, particularly the inclusion of an individual mandate for health insurance. (The provision was so widely unpopular that Congress and then-President Donald Trump effectively removed the requirement from Obamacare in 2017.)

I was Romney’s political director during the 2012 campaign, and we worked constantly to highlight the benefits of health care reforms in Massachusetts without appearing to praise the ACA. It doesn’t matter that Romney’s plan was a state plan and, as he argued, state policies might not be a good fit for the federal government. Romney’s ultimate act of bipartisanship was seen by some Republican primary voters not as a badge of honor but as a scarlet letter.