Proficiency Over Partisanship: Why Demonstrable Success Beats Political Combat

The Democratic Party is ready to fight. From California Governor Gavin Newsom threatening retaliatory gerrymandering to congresswoman Jasmine Crockett calling for Democrats to "bring a knife to a knife fight," the message is clear: the era of "when they go low, we go high" is over.

But what if this new combative strategy is exactly the wrong response? What if progressives are falling into a trap that plays to their opponents' strengths while abandoning their own most powerful weapon?

The seductive trap of political combat

There's something viscerally satisfying about watching Democrats finally throw punches. After years of perceived weakness, the base is energized by leaders willing to get down and dirty. The immediate gratification is real.

But political combat comes with hidden costs. When Democrats embrace tactics like retaliatory gerrymandering, they legitimize the very practices they've spent decades criticizing. More fundamentally, this approach plays to Republican strengths—the GOP has shown greater ruthlessness in redistricting wars and controls more state legislatures.

The evidence for a different path

Proficiency Over Partisanship: The Selective Reality of American Governance

Bottom Line Up Front: While American governance has achieved remarkable bipartisan successes when leaders prioritized measurable outcomes over partisan ideology—from the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to criminal justice reform that reduced federal recidivism by 55%—these victories are selective and fragile. The passage of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" in 2025, imposing $990 billion in Medicaid cuts and threatening coverage for 16 million Americans, demonstrates how quickly proficient governance can be undermined by partisan priorities. The evidence reveals that proficiency thrives in specific domains—infrastructure, conservation, disaster response—but fails when policies become ideological battlegrounds or when administrative changes prioritize partisan goals over operational effectiveness.

The fragile nature of bipartisan proficiency

Recent research reveals that bipartisan proficiency in American governance is both real and remarkably fragile. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act stands as perhaps the most compelling example of what's possible: 19 Republican senators joined all Democrats to pass $1.2 trillion in investments, with no evidence of political bias in fund distribution across red and blue states. Two years later, it had created over 35,000 projects and distributed $306 billion with measurable impacts on roads, bridges, broadband, and climate resilience.

Similarly, the First Step Act achieved overwhelming bipartisan support (87-12 in the Senate, 358-36 in the House) and delivered extraordinary results: individuals released under the act showed a 55% lower recidivism rate than typical federal releases, with only 12.4% returning to custody compared to the usual 43% rate. The Great American Outdoors Act passed 73-25 in the Senate, creating over 72,500 jobs and contributing $8 billion to local economies while addressing decades of deferred maintenance in national parks.

But these successes mask underlying vulnerabilities. Montana's Medicaid expansion—successfully renewed in March 2025 with 21 House Republicans joining Democrats—now faces existential threats from federal policy changes. The Trump administration's HR 1 imposes mandatory work requirements starting 2027 and eliminates crucial funding mechanisms, potentially forcing states to choose between raising taxes or ending coverage for vulnerable populations.

Even the Infrastructure Act itself—the crown jewel of bipartisan achievement—came under immediate attack. Trump's January 2025 "Unleashing American Energy" executive order froze selected IIJA grants, targeting climate-related infrastructure and electric vehicle charging programs. While Federal Judge Mary McElroy (a Trump appointee) issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025 requiring the grants to be unfrozen, the episode demonstrated how quickly even broadly popular legislation can become vulnerable to partisan reversal. The $294 billion in unawarded IIJA funds now gives the Trump administration significant discretionary power over future infrastructure investments, potentially favoring traditional projects while eliminating climate resilience initiatives.

When ideology defeats proficiency

The swift elimination of 18F, the federal government's digital services consultancy, illustrates how effective governance can be sacrificed to partisan priorities. Despite improving government services and generating documented savings—their IRS Direct File program alone was projected to save taxpayers billions—18F was "shuttered" in March 2025, with staff described as "non-essential" and abruptly locked out of their systems.

This wasn't about efficiency or results. 18F had successfully modernized federal websites, streamlined services, and promoted user-centered design across agencies. Their elimination reflected ideological opposition to initiatives perceived as aligned with the previous administration, regardless of their demonstrated value to taxpayers.

The same pattern appears in Medicaid expansion across states. Despite clear evidence of success—Montana's expansion strengthened rural hospitals while Louisiana's dropped uninsured rates from 22.7% to 8.9%—ideological opposition persists. Idaho passed legislation to either implement 11 restrictive changes or automatically terminate expansion for 89,300 enrollees by July 2026, prioritizing ideology over the documented benefits to rural healthcare systems.

The infrastructure exception

Infrastructure emerges as the rare domain where proficiency consistently transcends partisanship, but even here, success requires strategic framing. The Infrastructure Act succeeded by avoiding social programs and focusing on "traditional" physical needs—roads, bridges, broadband, water systems—that every community requires regardless of political affiliation.

Texas exemplifies this pragmatic approach. Under continuous Republican leadership, the state generates more wind power than any other, not from environmental ideology but from economic logic: wind energy provides rural land lease payments, electricity market competition, and energy independence. When renewable energy is framed economically rather than environmentally, it attracts bipartisan support even in conservative states.

The Everglades restoration program demonstrates how sustained bipartisan commitment is possible when environmental challenges have clear economic implications. With nearly $2 billion in recent federal investment complemented by Florida's $1.4 billion state commitment, the program transcends partisan divides because protecting the Everglades means protecting Florida's economy, drinking water, and property values.

The limits of crisis cooperation

Even disaster response—often cited as naturally bipartisan—reveals underlying political tensions. Hurricane Harvey's aftermath saw initial friction between Houston's Democratic mayor and Texas's Republican governor over control of $5 billion in federal relief funds. Mayor Sylvester Turner accused the state of "hogging" federal money and excluding local leaders from disbursement decisions.

While cooperation eventually emerged—Governor Abbott presented Turner with a $50 million state disaster relief check—the initial disputes highlight how partisan dynamics and power struggles can complicate even humanitarian responses. The imperative of crisis response may ultimately compel cooperation, but it doesn't eliminate the underlying political calculations about resource control and credit-claiming.

Lessons for sustainable governance

The pattern that emerges from this analysis suggests that proficiency over partisanship requires specific conditions to succeed and sustain:

Tangible, universal benefits matter most. Infrastructure improvements, reduced crime rates, and protected natural resources appeal across party lines because their benefits are visible and broadly shared. Abstract policy arguments pale compared to fixed bridges, safer communities, and clean water.

Economic framing transcends ideological framing. Texas leads in wind energy not from climate conviction but economic opportunity. Montana renewed Medicaid expansion partly because rural Republicans recognized it prevented hospital closures. When policies deliver clear economic value, ideological objections often fade.

Implementation transparency maintains support. The Infrastructure Act's public tracking portal and the First Step Act's regular congressional reports provide ongoing validation of initial bipartisan agreements. When results are visible and benefits tangible, it becomes politically costly to reverse successful programs.

Administrative continuity is crucial but fragile. The elimination of 18F despite its documented effectiveness and the targeted freezing of Infrastructure Act climate programs show how vulnerable technocratic competence is to political transitions. While traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, broadband) survived court challenges and bipartisan support, climate-related initiatives became immediate targets for reversal. Building sustainable institutions requires either stronger legal protections or such demonstrated value that elimination becomes politically impossible.

Federal-state tensions complicate success. Even when federal policy achieves bipartisan support, state-level implementation can fragment along partisan lines. Medicaid expansion succeeded federally but faces ongoing battles in states like Idaho and Montana, where federal cuts may force program termination despite local benefits.

Beyond the battlefield mentality

The evidence suggests that most Americans, and even most politicians, prefer solving problems to scoring partisan points when presented with clear choices between effective governance and political combat. Infrastructure investments improve communities regardless of voting patterns. Criminal justice reform enhances public safety universally. Conservation protects resources for everyone.

The challenge is institutionalizing these preferences rather than allowing them to be overwhelmed by partisan incentives. This requires building evaluation metrics into legislation, creating sustained communication channels between levels of government, cultivating cross-party relationships during less contentious periods, and consistently framing policies through practical benefits rather than ideological battles.

But the research also reveals sobering limits. Bipartisan proficiency is not a natural state but a hard-won achievement that requires constant protection from political forces that prioritize partisan advantage over operational effectiveness. The swift reversal of effective programs like 18F and the threats facing Medicaid expansion demonstrate that proficiency, once achieved, cannot be taken for granted.

The choice facing American governance is not whether to fight—political competition is inevitable in a democracy—but whether to fight smart. Sometimes the most effective resistance to bad governance is proving that good governance works through superior results rather than superior rhetoric. But maintaining that proof requires sustained commitment to measuring outcomes, protecting effective institutions, and choosing the common good over partisan advantage.

For Democrats tempted by the seductive call to "bring a knife to a knife fight," the evidence suggests a different path: become so demonstrably effective at governance that your opponents' main strategy becomes trying to tear down what you've built rather than building something better themselves. When Republicans resort to freezing successful infrastructure programs or eliminating effective digital services, they're essentially admitting they can't compete on results. The most powerful progressive response isn't matching their destructive tactics—it's making those tactics politically costly by highlighting what's being destroyed and consistently delivering superior alternatives.

The 2015-2025 period proves that despite deepening polarization, American governance retains remarkable capacity for pragmatic problem-solving when leaders choose proficiency over partisanship. The question is whether future leaders will learn from these successes or repeat the mistakes that sacrifice effective governance for political gain.