The Myth of Bipartisanship

Posted on 02/05/2010 at 10:17 am by Bob Cesca

Steve Pearlstein:

After all, if the only things the party in power can accomplish are those that the minority power can agree with, then what is the point of having an election? No matter which side won a majority, “common ground” — the things they all agree on — would still be the same.

America is all about the parties not getting along, but with enough swing votes to govern. But “bipartisanship” polls very, very well. Where I think the Obama “bipartisanship” idea is misguided is that they’re mistaking what people like to hear with how Washington should actually function.

Meanwhile, the ruling party should do its thing, and make a big effective case for it. The problem with the Democrats is that they’re kinda doing their thing while being timid about making a case for it. It’s infuriating because their are very obvious cases to be made for the stimulus, healthcare, energy and so on. Cases that would convince even some wingnuts.

Ultimately, I blame the ideology polls that show more conservatives than liberals. These stats are mistakenly taken at face value — but, issue by issue, Americans are far more liberal than they admit. But because the word “liberal” has been stigmatized for 40 years, many Americans don’t want to label themselves as such. If the congressional Democrats understood this, they wouldn’t be so flummoxed about selling liberal policies.

This entry was posted in Democratic Party and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • roxsteady

    I agree, those stupid ideology polls are a joke. Most people are more liberal than they let on and most importantly, if the majority of the people claim to be conservatives, than why have they been getting their asses kicked in the last 3 election cycles? Scarborough likes to quote that poll as well. He’s also full of shit!

  • http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/ Political Party Pooper

    I wonder what the results would be if the poll asked people if they were more liberal or more plutocratic.Or, maybe the question ought to be..”Would you lean more towards being an individual working for yourown gain in a liberal democracy, or an individual working for a corporation’s gain in a conservative democracy?

  • Irish Girl

    I have to occasionally remind myself that from the very beginning, bipartisanship has not existed. Anyone who needs proof only needs to read up on the newspaper quotes of candidates and their surrogates starting with the earliest elections. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton had some pretty ugly things to say about one another…..But the idea of a loyal opposition HAS always existed until recently. Even if Jefferson and Adams couldn’t stand one another, they could absolutely agree on putting the US first. They simply and genuinely disagreed about how to do that. And whoever won the election, would obviously face the opposition of the other party, with the jockeying that happens in Congress, in their own Cabinets, etc. Yet, the opposition knew when to step aside and let something happen.I think that modern politicians fall into five categories–regardless of party.1) Those who are delusional and not smart enough to know it. They truly love their country but they’re just too ignorant and uneducated to realize that their delusion and ignorance hurts the US more than the ideas of the opposition. Let’s call these the ‘short bus’ politicians.2) Those who are delusional and smart enough to know better, but refuse to budge. Let’s call these ‘true believer’ politicians.3) Those who are reality based but espouse popular delusional ideas to gain and keep power, money and prestige. They care nothing for the overall well-being of the country, just themselves. Ironically, even though they don’t believe what they say, they do sometimes get trappe by it. Sometimes it is in the country’s best interest for them to side with the opposition, they can’t without major loss of power in their base. Let’s call these ‘plutocratic’ politicians.4) Those who are reality based, TRY to eschew spewing popular nonsense ideas, and try to implement practical solutions. But they don’t always manage it. They try to walk the fine line between politics and good governance. Let’s just call them ‘good hearted’ politicians.5) Those who are reality based, work only for pragmatic solutions, and rarely, if ever, spew dangerous, delusional beliefs. Let’s call these ‘unicorn’ politicans.What do y’all think? Can you cite examples of each kind?

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    Maybe I’m all alone in remembering that Obama wanted to change the way Washington works? Well, it works through arm-twisting and backstabbing and horse-trading.Obama tried consensus, now he’s moving to majority. We’ll see what the GOP can make of a losing position and a losing strategy.

  • wildflowermaven

    People may like the idea of bipartisanship, but they don’t vote based on it. They vote on whether they think the pol will get something done if they’re a newbie, or if they have achieved something if they’ve been in Washington for a while. People may think, okay if the two sides worked together more would get done, but since that’s rarely possible, whatever strategy will get stuff done is what people want to happen.