I've heard David Brooks do his disingenuous "third way"stchick. I've heard the new Smokin' Joe Lunatic version of it. I've been nauseated by Ken Salazars milktoast incantations.
Unfortunately, there is a superficial appeal to this rhetoric on the part of the bulk of the population who don't follow politics closely and we need to be able to expose it neatly and pragmatically.
There are the hustlers who are peddling it, and there are some sincere folks who buy into it because they are genuinely burned out by the negativity.
Now, cynically, these snake-oil salesmen know there are a lot of these folks out there and for good reason. Just look at the bulk of the TV ads every election season. They're enough to make anyone sick. And, if you aren't really engaged in the issues, the primary thought you take away from the bombardment over the airways is that everyone running for offices is some sort of sick motherfucker. They are, take your pick, either sick because their opponent is telling you they are sick, or they are sick because they are willing to say anything to get elected, even if it is untrue. One or both of those statements have to be true. So, why shouldn't the conclusion be "There is too much partisanship"?
For the sake of the well intentioned folks who might be tempted to draw this conclusion and buy into that sort of argument, that is, be tempted by the David Brooks, Joe Lieberman line of shit, regarding a vital "center" this bipartisan concensus "middle" that was exemplified by this nutty "gang of 14" idiocy, we should explain why it is a horrible idea.
Such a strategy can make sense when we have a divided government.
That is, when one branch of government is controlled by one party and the other controlled by its opposite. In that case, finding the middle ground between the two basic ideologies represented by these two power centers, could result in good policy that might be reflected in law. So, the concept is not entirely crazy.
It is just crazy applied to the current set of circumstances.
When the entire government is controlled by one party, these sort of "bi-partisan" deal making arrangements amount to nothing more than giving political cover to the ruling party and making it more difficult for the opposition party to gain traction, to draw an effective distinction between itself and the ruling party. In short, such "co-operation amounts to co-option. In the words of Grover Norquist, "bipartisanship is date rape". It is entirely counterproductive to the goal of regaining some form of power.
The goal, as has finally be realized by most Democratic activists, has to first be, regaining some sort of power. Now, this could be regaining the House of Representatives this fall, or it could be the Presidency in 08. For many thoughtful independents, divided government may well be the goal. The House going Democratic in the fall and the Presidency being completely up for grabs is probably as it should be for many. But it is clear to any sentient being at this point that total Republican control has been an unmitigated disaster on every conceivable level.
The Whacko pundits like Brooks and Broder would have you believe that the NetRoots Like Kos are dragging the Democratic party to the left. If you are an independent, you should be aware of a fact that may show you how wrong that is. There is a group that Kos is supporting called the "Fighting Dems" composed of veterans running for the Congress this year. Now, I'm not sure exactly how many of them there are, but my guess is that the Democrats could come close to taking back the house if all of these candidates won. I ask you, do you really think that would drive the party to the left? And don't you think that the House of Representatives could use a healthy injection of Iraq War veterans next year?
Once the Democrats have broken the back of absolute Republican power and have either executive or subpoena power, then we can begin to once again extol the virtues of bi-partisanship. But right now, until that balance is restored, this truly out of control, out of balance and thoroughly incompetent government is going to have to be opposed with a unified front. It's that simple and anyone who tells you different is blowing smoke up your ass.
You don't have to be a Democratic partisan to buy into this line of reasoning. Indeed, you need only to agree to what is manifestly obvious to anyone who is able to observe what is going on and wants to see change. I like those odds.