Skip to main content

The Denver Post's front page, "with the figures
of Grief weeping over History."
You may not know it, but the super committee has been wildly successful where others have failed. Finally, we have confirmation that the beltway press and our elected officials have been worshiping a ghost.

The concept of "bipartisanship" used for real progress has been dead for a long, long time. The "spirit of bipartisanship" that drifts through the halls of Congress and into politicians' talking points is just that—a hollow spirit, devoid of any weight or substance.

Occasionally, the actual carcass of the much-beloved congressional kumbaya twitches now and again just long enough to name a post office, or raise congressional pay or do one of another handful of small, benign, milquetoast acts of mutual benefit. But by and large, it's the ghost of bipartisanship that overshadows every vote, every press release and every action on Capitol Hill.

It's not surprising that so many are still so enamored with the idea of a successful bipartisan process long after it's been clear that no such process can exist in our modern politics. The picture of two sides coming together to work for the common good is comforting and inviting and reassures us that the people we elect are as reasonable as ourselves. But modern politics are anything but reasonable, which is why clinging to the notion that anything meaningful can be accomplished through bipartisan process is like chasing ghosts.

Back in February of 2009, I wrote about the need to abandon our obsession with a bipartisan process and the need to instead focus on impementing bipartisan (or nonpartisan) solutions:

I take no issue with the type of bipartisan process the president emphasized during the campaign. It’s the myth that a bipartisan solution calls for a bipartisan process that I think should be damned into the ninth circle of political hell (which, incidentally, is right below the D.C. cocktail circuit).  

That conclusion is the result of a deeply held belief I have that Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.  

Fixing our broken health care system, ending the war in Iraq, increasing funding for education, improving our infrastructure and preserving the Constitution are all universally applicable policies.  Every citizen, red or blue, rich or poor, young or old, swing voter or not, benefits from such policies aimed at the greater and common good. Nancy Pelosi has used the word "nonpartisan," and that likely is the more accurate descriptor. But at their core, these policies benefit Republican and Democrat alike.

On the Republican side, Republican policies cannot give rise to bipartisan solutions.  When the core philosophy of a party is that government cannot work and should do as little as possible, that philosophy benefits only those who have the resources necessary to sustain themselves regardless of whether the government is massive or whether it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub. From the chant of tax cuts at any cost to the fanatical focus on depriving the neediest of resources under the banner of "entitlement reform," Republican governance is aimed simply at helping those who need help the least.

The fundamental flaw in clamoring for a bipartisan process in light of the above is the erroneous belief that the fruit of any open-handed endeavor is necessarily a bipartisan (and universally acceptable) solution. One need only look in the rear view mirror to disprove such a naive notion. It has been the most bipartisan of processes that have sprung forth the most odious and partisan results.

Despite the track record of "bipartisanship" over the last decade, many naively thought the super committee would actually fulfill its mandate and produce a viable solution. But how can a committee work for the common good when half of the committee is singularly committed to the good of its own party?

The Republican Party has fought viciously against jobs for teachers and firefighters, much-needed prison reform, child marriage prevention, well-qualified judicial nominees, taxes on job exporters, foreclosure prevention, extended unemployment benefits, even energy-saving compact florescent light bulbs and healthier school lunches (yes, for Republicans, pizza is a vegetable).

If the Republican allegiance to obstruction is so great that it encompasses light bulbs and pizza sauce, who would be foolish enough to believe that it wouldn't include issues of deficit reduction and tax revenue?

Yet, foolish was the word of the day when the super committee was announced. All of D.C. was gullible and aflutter with the hope that the congressional celebrities chosen to sit at the cool kids table would magically forge gold out of the ashes of compromise.

Of course, they couldn't forge such a solution. That didn't stop them from trying. For months, committee members went through the theatrics of hearings and press conferences. All that was missing was candles at the séance.

Perhaps now, with the pre-destined failure of the super committee, we can finally declare the idea of bipartisan process for our big problems dead and buried. At the very least, perhaps the Democratic Party can finally mourn the purple-tinged spirit of ethereal compromise and alter its strategy to produce real results rather than process spectacles.

Rest in peace, bipartisanship. Rest in peace.  

Originally posted to Georgia Logothetis on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:36 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (29+ / 0-)

    Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. - Robert Frost

    by Georgia Logothetis on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:36:52 AM PST

  •  That body has been long a-mouldering. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurious, Larsstephens
  •  I Fear It's a Zombie That Can Never Die (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurious, Larsstephens

    It sounds so appealing to the conservative base of the imagination of Democratic Party leadership.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:41:41 AM PST

  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

    There's been overwhelming bipartisan support for no-strings Wall Street bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, the war in Afghanistan, George Bush's Great War on a Tactic, the drug war, unfair trade, Israel...


  •  If one side adamantly refuses to compromise... (0+ / 0-)

    and the other side equates compromise with capitulation, what is left is only an illusion of "bipartisanship" with each capitulation.

    So, the admission that "bipartisanship is dead" is the final acknowledgment of a reality that has existed for several years--or maybe even decades?

  •  I heard congress has 9% approval. (9+ / 0-)

    And that's a dipstick from before the "super committee" reached a stalemate.

    Remember, you can't have crazy without az.

    by Desert Rose on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:06:51 PM PST

  •  bipartisanship is a false dichotomy; all that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    exists are votes of varying agreement, given the ability to vote one way at one moment in order to claim to one set of constituents that they supported a measure when in fact they vote it down on a subsequent version of a bill

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:12:19 PM PST

  •  Rest in Pieces (5+ / 0-)


    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:15:22 PM PST

  •  What's interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, seabos84

    is that the strictly political partisan infighting that is so heightened should characterize a period where ideological conceptions (the supremacy of neoliberal market economics, American exceptionalism, and the cult of individual solutions to social problems) are so  universally shared on a genuinely "bipartisan" basis.

    If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. ~Malcolm X

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:15:35 PM PST

  •  Q; why are Dems stopping recess appointments? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarackStarObama, dougymi, verso2

    I have never heard why the Democratic leadership of the Senate keeps it in pro-forma session in order to stop any recess aappointments by the President? Was it a part of some budget agreement or what?

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:15:45 PM PST

    •  I think there is some gimmick where the House (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      can somehow maneuver the Senate to be "in session" but I forget the details.

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:19:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think they can (0+ / 0-)

        I think it's up to Reid and the leadership but I could be wrong too. But awhile back I saw a Senator stay in DC for the purpose of calling a session to order and ajourning it to stop recess appointments.

         Maybe someone can help us out.

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:30:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  both bodies have to be in formal recess (5+ / 0-)

        at the same time.  The Senate can't go into formal at least 3 day recess (which allows for recess appointments) unless the house goes into it too.  That's in Article 1  section 5 of the constitution.

        Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

        Of course, it's murky and to contest anything is going to take adjudication.   I like this article  for a primer. IANAL so I hope a few of that profession will pipe up and tell me in how many ways I am incorrect, but that's how I think boehner's bums and cantor's crooks are doing it.

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:49:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure why dems do it, but... (0+ / 0-)

      both houses must pass a resolution in order for a recess to begin.

      “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.” President Obama 11/2/11

      by BarackStarObama on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:40:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rest in Peace. (5+ / 0-)

    At least until Catfood Commission III is seated.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:19:11 PM PST

  •  At Some Point Repubicans Will Regain Control..... (6+ / 0-)

    of all three Houses.  They will immediately rescind the filibuster, & all of a sudden majority votes (even by l point) will count.  Republicans will then be free to get anything & everything they want.....including demolishing entitlements.  

    And.....Democrats will act gobsmacked & feign surprise.  They could have done that as well in 2006.......but they chose not to.  Many Dems actually like the way DC is run, & they like their lobbyists & their corporate donors.   Watch for it.....gobsmacked, I tell ya.  

  •  You Left Out that the Republican Policies (0+ / 0-)

    that we would be compromising with have all failed. It would be giving in to their ideology that has been rejected in the elections. This is why Obama needs to push hard for Progressive policies and call out the Republicans for sabotaging the economy on purpose. He needs to set the clear narrative for the American people about who is trying to help them and who isn't.

  •  Anyone who has been paying attention in (6+ / 0-)

    OH and WI has a clear view that Republicans are not even pretending to govern in a bipartisan manner.  Get on the bus or get run over was the message - no need for Democrats to even show up.  No need to consider any one else's point of view - my way or the highway.

    “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

    by ahumbleopinion on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:23:46 PM PST

  •  I think that partisanship is not dead at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is dead is the GOP. Partisanship requires that the two parties are actually operating in the same universe.

    However, the GOP completely lost it. RIP GOP. The GOP has been mumbling utter nonsense for years now and can no longer be considered a serious political party. Created its own universe of nonsense completely detached from reality. Such a GOP will never play any positive role in American politics. It can, however as we daily see, play a destructive role.

    More about this by Paul Krugman and David Frum.

  •  And the GOP's Partisan-in-Chief isn't even elected (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Brooke In Seattle

    No one can bargain with The Grover, not even his Fellow Pledges. It's a full-pledged nightmare all around.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:29:49 PM PST

  •  Bipartisanship has never been about good policy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Brooke In Seattle

    It is only about getting a result.  With the current Republican Party, it is about getting no result at best or a bad result at worst.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:41:17 PM PST

  •  The death knell for bipartisanship (0+ / 0-)

    could not have come a moment too soon. In fact, it should have been cremated immediately after Obama's election when, far and wide, the GOP made it clear that their number one goal was keeping success away from the President.

    That can only mean obfusaction, delay, obstructionism, and a tactical approach to keep the economy and the country in so deep a struggle that the only alternative would be a GOP victory that they could claim politically, regardless of the cost.

    There is no patriotism in openly undermining the President of the United States. There is nothing democratic about using extreme measures to prevent the President's blueprint for jobs and the economy from coming to a vote.

    Somehow, this message has to be told and retold until the majority of American people are finally able to see through it. Instead, the media continues to play the "both sides do it / both sides are at fault" game which is so untrue and so unfair. There are few saints in the Democratic Party. But the devil is in the details of the plot by the GOP to attempt to destroy the US economy for its own political gain.

    Now THAT's the president I voted for!

    by RevJoe on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 07:54:49 PM PST

    •  It is Obama's genius (0+ / 0-)

      that against his daily stretching out his hands to the GOP, the public finally realizes that a bipartisanship with an insane GOP is simply not possible.

      This could very well allow Obama to be reelected in shitty economic times. It will get worse much should the Euro indeed collapse.

      •  so... he believes this or not? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that Obama's quixotic search for bipartisanship is deliberately for political purposes? That he actually knows it's a failure as a legislative strategy but does it anyway?

        •  this is an old thing with Obama (0+ / 0-)

          we had already seen this in the primary with Hillary. He does not fight, stays nice, but in the end he wins. So, yes there is some system behind this. He keeps playing nice, keeps offering bipartisanship to an insane party and I believe that he will succeed.

          •  I think you're right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I live in NJ and I read the NY Daily News, a Mort Zuckerman paper. Old Mort loves his ME wars & tax cuts, but is pretty liberal on social issues. Anyway, one of his editorials the other day got out the fainting couches for the death of the "Super Committee" (a failure for him is a win for the 99% IMO but that's for another day). However, it basically said the Democrats and Obama at least TRIED to act like grownups and put the blame mostly on the Repukes. I think that's an impression people have of Obama overall & I think it will help him in 2012.

            A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

            by METAL TREK on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 10:53:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Great quote I hear on liberal radio station WCPT (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, there are SOME conservative Democrats. There are NO progressive Republicans.

      A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

      by METAL TREK on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 10:47:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The entire Republican Party is controlled by (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tari, Brooke In Seattle

    un-elected forces: Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh all in service to the Kochs, Scaife, Coors, Waltons, etc.

    Republicans aren't so bad as long as they don't move next door, try to marry my child, or run for public office.

    by OHdog on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:06:05 PM PST

  •  until the torch is passed to a NEW generation, NOT (0+ / 0-)

    beset with diaper wetting and appeasing beltway scumbags, liars and thieves -

    bi-partiszan-shit ain't going nowhere.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:13:58 PM PST

  •  Bipartisanship - as I've long said (even back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress) is but one act on the Kabuki stage.

    It's an excuse.

    It's a red herring.

    Remember Harry Reid refusing to invoke reconciliation during the first year of healthcare "reform"?

    The mantra of bipartisanship is part of the foundation of "powerless Democrats" who control the Presidency and the Senate.


    Let me hold my breath while our pitiful social programs are maintained at current levels (not even increased) while Military spending is cut and/or taxes on the wealthy are raised (or not even raised - how about repeal of the Bush/Obama tax cut for the wealthy?)

    Wait!  I know!  We'll give businesses tax breaks for hiring workers!  AND... some more Free Trade deals.  

    That'll fix things right nicely.

    Nothing like outsourcing and cutting the tax base to really shore up our country's finances and strengthen our pitiful social programs.

    While we are at it, let's take another good WHACK at Social Security by increasing the Payroll Tax "Holiday".  We'll just pay for it with the general fund.  Which is paid for by deficit spending.

    Who says Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit?  It does now!  Is Government drowning in a bathtub yet?

    Congress drags Obama down just like my friends make me drink on weekends.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:35:24 PM PST

  •  Here's some examples of Bipartisanship: (0+ / 0-)

    Patriot Act Renewal

    Free Trade

    Obama Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

    Timothy Geithner (What, GOP?  No Filibuster?)

    Ben Bernanke  (What?  No Filibuster here, either?)

    Eric Holder (Huh? I thought the GOP opposed everything Obama did?)

    Kagen?  (If I look hard enough, I'm going to find that Party of NO lurking around here somewhere)

    I'm guessing the GOP forgot about filibustering.

    /angry snark

    Congress drags Obama down just like my friends make me drink on weekends.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:45:01 PM PST

  •  A Thanksgiving Carol, by a dickens-head :-) (0+ / 0-)

    Bipartisanship: I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it on of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it! In life, my spirit never rose beyond the limits of our money-changing holes! Now I am doomed to wander without rest or peace, incessant torture and remorse!

    Democrat: But it was only that you were a good man of business, Bipartisanship!

    Bipartisanship: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business! And it is at this time of the rolling year that I suffer most!

    Put no immediate trust in authority alone; trust a proven record of fact. Above all help one another and protect the children. Bitter winds blow in the winter, but the flowers always bloom again in glory.

    by Tommy Allen on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 09:03:38 PM PST

  •  Why do Dems hate being partisan? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nice post, but it made me wonder why so many pursue the ghostly spirit. The other side has been willing to wage all-out war for some time now, but not Democrats. When somebody has declared war on you, why would you not fight back? It has become clear that there is no core contingency of Republicans who will come to their senses and defy the right wing...see Boehner, J. We have to have the fight to reach a new beginning. Why not now?

    •  re: Why Dems hate being partisan (0+ / 0-)

      I can only assume it's some sort of "socialist" panic - as in fear of being referred to as such at the next primary or general election in their purple district in Bumfk Iowa - or misplaced altruism. The Dems were by far the bigger obstacle to Obama in the health care debate. The 60 votes in the Senate meant nothing as it included Landrieux, Lieberman and assorted Nelsons. I was horrified Max Baucus was part of the Super committee - as in here we go again. And no doubt he personally would put Medicare "on the table" for $1.95 in tax raises. But luckily, the Repug side was Norquistated.

  •  The modern definition of "bipartisanship" (0+ / 0-)

    Giving the Repukes everything they want. At least that's how it seems to me when the people crowing the most about it are Grampy McSame, Lindsay Graham, and Holy Joe.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 10:41:26 PM PST

  •  More of a wraith than a ghost (0+ / 0-)

    "Ghost" makes bipartisanship sound so damn friendly.

    Damn thing is a wraith.  Mean, scary thing.

    You can't govern if you can't tell the country where you are taking it. The plot of Obama's presidency has been harder to follow than "Inception." -- F. Rich

    by mbayrob on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 12:13:26 AM PST

  •  The DEMOCRATS (0+ / 0-)

    Only the DUMB DEMOCRATS think in the turms of BI-PARTYSHIP, while the CORPORATE REPUBLICANS LAUGH at them , lets looks at what the DEMOCRATS have done in BY-partyship, it got us the UN-HOLY FIVE on the SUPREAM COURT, IT got us NINE(9) REPUBLICANS CEO CONTROLE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. Another thing FOX, and CNN(FOX LIGHT) created the TEA PARTY.  And still the SENATOR FROM ILL loves his REPUBLICAN FRIENDS they HAVE WINE AND CHEESE together. TIME for these CANDY ASS DEMOCRATS TO GO.

  •  Time to force a change in Congress. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's interesting to note that in this that when a Conservative calls for a "Bipartisan" effort, they are telling the other side "it's my way or the highway", no compromise. But the Democrats bend over and let the other side hijack their bipartisan bills and compromise to the point the bill isn't anything like it was originally intended.

    It's time that the Democrats and President Obama put the hammer down and tell the GOP... NO MORE!

    If the Conservatives want to another Post Office? NO.
    ..reaffirm "in god we trust"? NO.
    ..defense authorization bill? NO.

    Take it back to the Conservatives and tell them "NO bills will pass" until they pass a "Jobs Bill" or some form of economic improvement bill...

    No more playing games Senator and Representative. This time we control the legislation and we want the next bill to be passed to relate directly to the problems of this country... not your imagination.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 02:30:43 AM PST

  •  This was a great read thanks! (0+ / 0-)

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 02:45:15 AM PST

  •  See my sig. (0+ / 0-)

    It is Bipartisanshit actually . It stinks.

    "The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out”. - George Carlin

    by Funkygal on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 03:57:46 AM PST

  •  Republicans Want to Diminish Government, (0+ / 0-)

    so sabotaging the Supercommittee was the only thing for them to do.  They know there will be a knee-jerk assignment of some blame to the Democrats, and they can prattle on about Obama's "failure to bring people together", his being a "bystander", his lack of "leadership" ,et. al.  And what better time to roil the financial markets and help ensure no real economic recovery before the elections.

  •  The media has an obsession (0+ / 0-)

    with the process of bipartisanship, and doesn't bother itself in the slightest with an examination of nonpartisan solutions.  This obsession is what really needs to be interred.

    This is the reason that there has been no pushback on the Republican meme that the supercommittee collapse was the fault of the Democrats - the media just goes once again with the braindead lazy and worthless approach that it was everybodies' fault, and the GOP's absurd claim gains traction as a result. Despite the fact that the concessions put on the table by the Democrats shifted the deal considerably to the right of Simpson-Bowles! It indeed went too far to the right, and ended up being a test of the sincerity of the Republicans on the committee, which they failed miserably.

    What is most needed right now is recognition by the media that Democrats' solutions (not those of the committee,  which were in fact right of center, but in general) are indeed non-partisan.  They are supported by many in both parties. They are centrist (I know, a dirty word to many) and will benefit all. It is not the Democrats who have moved to the left, but the Republicans who have moved far, far right.

    It seems though, the only way to kill the creaking, lazy, brain-dead, "obsession with bipartisan process" zombie so loved by the media is for the next election to become a clear statement by the public that they see through what the GOP is up to, and for that public punish them appropriately at the voting booth.  After all 2010 was clearly a message that the President and Congress were not sufficiently focusing on jobs, and now the Republicans who were elected, in addition to visibly gumming up the whole system, are concentrating on control of women's bodies and destroying jobs.

    If this happens, then the media should finally wake up - but nothing short of it will work.


    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 05:53:09 AM PST

  •  superduper committee (0+ / 0-)

    tolerance for orthodoxy doesn't return tolerance.

    if you truly have the answer, listening to lesser truths is not convincing. the zeal that the right has for their ideology makes it impossible for them to compromise. if we wish to govern in a democracy that advantages the many, we have to, one way or another, marginalize the ones that truly don't wish that goal.

    to the left and hopefully the middle the definition of a liberatarian is "selfish prick'...., couple that with a few unbendable religious ideals and the perception of dwindling resources and you reach our impasse.

    its about community, how you define our common interests and strategies for success. to the larger group it should be apparent these good people can't govern. the question is can we as a society survive the time it takes to come to that conclusion.  

  •  If Bipartisanship is a failure so is Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Food for thought.

  •  Abandon it? I think not. (0+ / 0-)

    The idea of folks in congress actually doing things for the public good is not at all something to be abandoned.  

    The diarist's position is correct as long as we are talking about 'obsession' and assorted psychiatric terms.  If we want to talk politics and policy and the process of legislation, then we have to talk in non-medical terms.  

    We elect folks to represent us in public space -- the space reserved for doing the business of the public.  We expect them to do what is right for the nation, not for themselves or some special interest.  This is an interest in Justice, that is, in proper government.  

    To use the public space on the behalf of a private interest (including one's party, which is a private entity, or one's political future, which is again a private interest) is corrupt -- it is the first level of corruption, as T Jefferson understood it.  His principle reason for seeing parties as the first source of corruption was just this: they replace public with private interests in the public work of legislation.  

    To give up "bipartisanship" is to give up the concept that we can have non-corrupt legislative bodies and processes.  

    Its a mistake of the first order.  

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Sat Nov 26, 2011 at 08:53:24 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site