Stop whining, centrists: Bipartisanship is a myth that’s never existed
While Beltway elite pine for the "good old days" and condemn filibuster reform, they're wrong on the history
MICHAEL LIND
One of the greatest myths about American politics is that there was once a golden age of bipartisanship in which responsible, enlightened statesmen set aside partisan differences in order to collaborate with their colleagues on the other side. This understanding of history underlies constant calls for “grand bargains” among left and right on the budget and other issues. It also permits figures like Ross Perot and Michael Bloomberg to pose as practical problem-solvers superior to petty partisan politicians.
Like most historical myths, the myth of bipartisanship is a poor guide to historical understanding and contemporary action.
Yes, bipartisanship was much higher in the mid-twentieth century than it is now. A new graphic provides a striking illustration of the ideological fissioning of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
But while partisan polarization was lower in the past, ideological polarization—disagreements on the basis of philosophy and values—has always been high. Back in the bipartisan Fifties, there were plenty of conservatives who thought that liberals were communists and plenty of liberals who thought of conservatives as fascists.
The difference between 2013 and 1963 is that in the earlier period liberals and conservatives were found in both of the two parties, which still reflected the geographic realignment that had produced the Civil War. The Democrats, still based in the South, had their conservative Southern and Midwestern members, while the Republicans, still the northern party of Lincoln, had many liberal members.
full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/24/stop_whining_centrists_bipartisanship_is_a_myth_thats_never_existed/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Interesting excerpt:
Where is the room for bipartisan, cross-ideological compromise? I don’t see it.
I don't see it either.
-Laelth
and more of "reality" and who's living in it and who's not.
We have one party (Democrats) whom, for the most part, live in reality and are interested in facts, empirical evidence, and research to determine the best policies to pursue (and which ones to avoid). They don't get it right everytime, of course, but at least their efforts often result in successful, productive, and enduring policies. OTOH we have another party (Republicans) whom reject all of those things and seek to create their own reality and whose policies- to the extent that they develop them at all- don't reflect the real world experiences and needs of most people.
We also have one party (Democrats) whom believe that government should function as it is intended to do regardless of who's in power and will compromise when necessary to achieve this goal. OTOH we have another one (Republicans) whom simply believe that they are entitled to power and that if they are not in power, it is perfectly acceptable for them to refuse to compromise on anything (even while demanding that the other side "compromise"
and instead seek to obstruct and sabotage the normal functioning of government to get their own way or, if nothing else, prevent the other side from getting anything done, including normal legislative business, some of which used to pass totally unremarked (i.e. debt ceiling increases).
I could go on but the basic point is that the failure of Congress to work together to get stuff done isn't so much a matter of ideology but rather each party's individual approaches to governing and the political process and until the Republicans come back down to Earth and start living in reality again, I don't see much changing in terms of the ability to get anything done. The only solution(s) that I can think of at the moment is that the Republicans need to be kept out in the wilderness for awhile and/or try to broker deals with some of their more rational members (are there many left at this point?)
