The Bipartisanship Scam

I recently wrote about how, despite a seismic shift that has brought about the mainstreaming of positions and policies formerly considered "left wing," the traditional media continue to insist on promoting the idea that on almost every issue the truth is to be found smack dab in the bipartisan middle.

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal served up a classic example of this wrong-headed conventional wisdom, a lengthy piece entitled "America's Race to the Middle," by John Harwood and Gerald Seib.

I was handed the Journal on my Saturday flight from New York to San Francisco on United Airlines. And the Harwood/Seib piece was so out of touch with the current zeitgeist that I found myself repeatedly checking the date at the top of the page to make sure the flight attendant hadn't mistakenly given me a paper that someone had left on the plane a decade ago.

The piece starts off by rightly noting the public's "hunger for change" and "major reforms." But the authors then argue that the cause of this hunger is the fact that "the two parties have moved further apart on the ideological spectrum," resulting in "party fatigue."

Excuse me? The reason 82 percent of the public thinks the country is on the wrong track is because of "party fatigue"? This is beyond parody. Might it not have something to do with the Iraq war, the sputtering economy, the price of gas, skyrocketing foreclosures, and the way the Bush administration has systematically shredded the Constitution and abandoned the moral high ground?

Wasn't the Iraq war the crowning example of bipartisanship during the Bush era? And we know how well that bipartisanship worked out. Actually, what is tragic is that in the run-up to the war we didn't have more of the "gridlock" Harwood and Seib decry. A lot of people are dead because of the bipartisanship that Harwood and Seib venerate.

And it's not just Harwood and Seib, but two of the people they turn to to buttress their case -- Karl Rove and former RNC chair Ken Mehlman. "Both parties," Mehlman says, "having accomplished the big things that they set out to do, fight over the small things." Yeah, small things like that little fracas going on over in Iraq. Or the collapsing housing market. Or 45 million people without health insurance.

The solution? According to Harwood and Seib, the answer is quite simple: politicians from different parties need to hang out more. I'm not kidding. The problem is that "fewer lawmakers from opposing sides actually live in Washington, where they and their families might get better acquainted and engage in the natural human inclination to compromise with a friend." The article quotes GOP Rep. Jim McCrery, who says, "When you get to know somebody as a neighbor, or your kids play together on the soccer team, it's harder for you to go on the floor and call them names."

Sure, if only Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi had had a few dinners together, we might not be in a disastrous war, or we wouldn't have had No Child Left Behind, or a prescription drug program that doesn't allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to reduce prices. Oh wait, those were all bipartisan bills.

Pie in the sky everybody-has-to-be-in-the-center-as-the-right-defines-it articles get written all the time. But seldom are they as out of touch with what's really going on as "America's Race to the Middle."

Another article I read on the plane, by Carl Hulse in the New York Times -- and definitely from 2008 -- put the WSJ piece in stark relief.

The Times piece was about how Bush and House Republicans are banding together to go out with what appears to be a giant f-you-to-America bang. In short, House Democrats are about to send Bush several bills. Bush is planning to veto them and the lunatic fringe of the House (aka the GOP leadership) is going to back him.

One of those bills is a war and international aid appropriations bill that comes with a $195 billion price tag instead of the $178 billion Bush requested. The extra money? It's for college benefits for veterans and extra unemployment benefits for those suffering because of the recession.

Another bill getting the veto threat would aid those facing foreclosure. Bush has also promised to veto legislation that would take away tax breaks for oil companies. And something tells me that no amount of bipartisan dining or across-the-aisle soccer match cheering would change that.

Thankfully, Democrats seem to be coming to their senses -- finally -- and rejecting the notion that joining hands with Republicans and racing to what the Right wants us all to believe is the middle is sound political strategy. The problem with Washington hasn't been gridlock, it's been Democrats' willingness to buy into the conventional wisdom and cave in on issue after issue in the name of bipartisan comity.

The road to victory in 2008 doesn't run through a mythical middle that has been dragged far to the right over the past 7-plus years; it runs through the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit. The center that opposes the war, favors economic fairness, knows that climate change is real and a crisis, wants to take care of our veterans, and believes in the right to universal health care.

As for the media, perhaps someone can send those intoxicated with the misguided conventional wisdom on bipartisanship to reporter rehab.

If you are in Chicago tonight, I'll be at Borders on 830 N. Michigan Avenue at 7 pm speaking, answering questions, and signing books.

Comments

[socialdemocracy1968]

Bipartisanship is a myth. It has never existed. What we view to be bipartisanship is simply the "New Democrats," i.e. Democrats who want to be Republicans, cowering in the face of the conservative attack machine. They will never dare do anything that deviates from Republican dogma, because to do so would be "out of touch" with American voters. Last time I check, American voters were dissatisfied with our tanked economy, broken healthcare, and the sheer amount of bullshit we've been getting into in Iraq - the most mentally retarded idea since Vietnam. The Democrats need to start defending liberal values again. Not because it's the opposite of conservatism, but because that's what America needs, and what makes sense! We need to save the environment not only because our environmental stupidity is rapidly killing off fauna, but because soon, we won't have the capacity to use such wasteful fuel any longer - it's expensive and we buy it from our enemies. We need to get out of Iraq not only because we went there for no tangible reason, but because our troops are dying with no end in sight and our money is being drained into this astronomically expensive effort. And we need to restore the Constitution because the Republicans have been too busy using it as toilet paper. It's time we stopped acquiescing to Republican propagandists (aka the MSM) and started fighting the good fight as we should have been doing.

[thebeerdoctor]

Another brilliant observation from Arianna Huffington.

[ibsteve2u]

"America's Race to the Middle," or, "Maybe If We Pretend We Will Play Ball With Them We Can Avoid Accountability".

[cobraxus]

the Republicans have been in a position to dictate for 8 years and that's about to end.so naturally they've adopted the ole "Let's Work Together" platform."Cry-Baby"Boehner has enacted no less then 68 filabusters in order to prevent votes on bi-partisan legislation.this is their grand exit strategy:slow things down?make no progress?then hope something bad happens before November.brilliant!

[QueenofSheba]

This is exactly what continues to nag at me about Obama - his insistence on "bipartisanship" and working with the opposition. I hope he quickly realizes how hopeless that idea is.

[Bluebloodsbastardson]

Those GOOPers will be given an offer they can't refuse by Pres. Obama, there will be accountability and names named if they don't play nice, their districts will suddenly be under the bottom of the priority list and constituents will know why......hopefully the DEMS will have a Trifecta of the Executive Branch, the Senate and Congress that is veto-proof and filibuster proof so they can undo the damage the Repubs (including Clinton) have done over the past 25 years....He is under no pressure to work with the opposition and if the GOOPER's don't work with him they are fucked.....Obama knows this very well.....

[5thGenDem]

Amen! The GOP has has it's chance at bipartisanship and pretty much totally rejected it. Let's hope Obama finds it unnecessary to have to compromise with them via a filibuster-proof senate.

[davidpeace]

This is the same "mainstream media" that has picked McCain to be our president and will do anything to see that he becomes so, including not reporting on his obvious incompetence and pandering. This is just more of the same "mainstream media" that is so in lockstep with the military-industrial-petroleum complex that even if Senator Obama, or even Senator Clinton if she gets her way, becomes president, a Democrat will not be able to change things because they will be constantly enmeshed in some bs scandal about not wearing a flag lapel pin or some such, that they won't be able to get anything meaningful done, that is if they weren't also pandering to that same military-industrial-petroleum complex that they depend on to get into power in the first place. So this "mainstream media" continues to force feed us more and more bs to distract us from what we should be concentrating on, like rescuing our dying planet, like American Idol.

[aleco]

Arianna is an extroadinary woman. Her views and opinions are consistent with mine. She speaks for me on every issue. God bless her. She is the voice of reason along with Keith Olbermann.

When are we as a nation going to come to our senses and realize that the Republican philosophy is not only destructive but also un-American and anti-Christian. My brother, a rabid Republican, more Bush than Bush, and who professes to be deeply religious (goes to church every Sunday), has nothing but contempt for minorities and the poor. He blames the poor for being poor. "It's their fault," he says. I hear the same thing from my Repubican friends. "Nobody helped me. I worked hard to get to where I am today," forgetting of course that they were born white to a father who had a half way decent job and that they had an opportunity to get a good education.

Why should I worry about the dumb-ass white Americans who voted for Hillary yesterday and are inclined to vote Republican. My income is recession proof. I have excellent health insurance. But I worry about my kids and grandchildren. They deserve a better America. One that can rise above racial prejudices and cultural hypocracy and elect a good and decent man for president, and I'm not talking about John McCain. Obama is an extroadinary individual. Forget race. With him as president we at least have a chance for a better America and a better world.

[neilschool]

The authors of this article both work for the New York Times, not the WSJ. Furthermore, both parties have become regionalized and more partisan.

[Kashathree]

Reading these comments is frightening. Not for what bloggers are saying but their appalling lack of English composition skills saying them. We need to get to work on banning text messaging and getting rid of teachers who are not proficient in their fields---and yet they demand a professional twelve months of pay for about eight months worth of well.............showing up at school, I guess. There's more to worry about than getting rid of an illiterate president here.

[EureekaMcDermitt]

Yeah, because text messaging and incompetent teachers are the reasons for why people write like crap on message boards. First of all, I think all teachers will agree that it isn't just showing up at school, teachers have a lot on their shoulders. I think we should blame the ignorant baby machines in the world who have children and decide to plop them in front of the television. While we're on the subject of bad grammar let's talk about your hundred dot ellipses which doesn't even belong there in the first place. Not only do we have to get rid of this garbage we call a president but we need to get rid of all of those corrupted politicians whose vote is decided on what company's lobbyist gets to him/her first. Then we'll work on people like you who sit there and bitch on a message board instead of going out and making a difference in the world.

[surfcitysteven]

Get real. When we type hear (sic) we do it hit and run many times. If you understand the message, mission accomplished. First time on a message board, kid?

[Heyman]

Arianna,
Good article! I agree 100%. The Republican Party is dead. Corporate puppets that care about no one but themselves.

[PadrePio]

Ms. Huffington do you now disagree with the Precious? He's all hopey and unity so how can you not be in love with bipartisanship. The Precious demands bipartisanship by using Republican talking points about Health Care and Social Security. You are dangerously close to becoming an apostate. If you not careful you'll be banned from your own blog for your heresy against the Precious. This could result in being banned not only from Huffington post but also Opraha.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

So sorry your candidate is going down to defeat. Try to understand how sick we are of the Clintons and their sense of entitlement.

[QueenofSheba]

Stop it, both of you. What you're doing is guaranteeing that regardless of who the Democratic nominee turns out to be, we've lost at least one Democratic vote. Any Democratic candidate will be better than John McCain (or any Republican), and we can't afford to alienate each other.

[themunz]

The GOP is trying to avert a train wreck. Under those circumstances the rhetoric will become more and more bizarre. The aim is to be a chameleon, and therefor, invisible to the Obama predator. For this to work they will also have to be invisible to GOP voters.( there goes the 28% rusted-on GWB support base)

[freneticd]

This has been a one-party-state since the beginning of the Reagan Years. It would be nice if this changed, but I'll believe it when I see it. Clinton, then Gore and Bush in 2000 kept blathering the same identical "free trade-tough on drugs and crime-death penalty " crap, and the number of deaths in Iraq that resulted from sanctions by the Clinton administration rival the casualties of the current war in numbers.
Interventionism in private lives, interventionism in the business of other nations, and increased "welfare for the rich" through defense spending and prison building, as well as special tax breaks seem to be fine with both parties. The bipartisan consensus, to practice kleptocracy, "nannyinsm," and war and prison profiteering remains strong. I sure hope that this consensus may break sometime soon, but I remain skeptical. Check out my recently published content on AC:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/754119/americas_oneparty_authoritarian_system.htmlAmerica's One-Party, Authoritarian System: A Bogus Democracy

[lucidthoughts]

But can you explain how the Democratic party lost the 1968 election? They were against the war; 50,000 plus dead, riots & protests in the streets , racial strife, the assassinations of MLK & RFK, people were fed up! AND WE LOST TO RICHARD M. NIXON--A CENTRIST. I'd argue HISTORICALLY that Americans only go as far as the DEMOCRATIC CENTER in uncertain times, and to the Republican Right unfortunately. But they DO NOT go to the liberal left wing of the Democratic party when push comes to shove on election day. They may say they want 'change' in 'polls' but they do not vote that way, they want moderation and steadiness in a general election, especially now. One of the many reasons I think BUSH won in 2000 is because there was no risk involved for the American people, the economy was great, they went to the Right. They calculated their RISK VS. REWARD. It was no big deal for them to vote for BUSH. Gore did not 'connect' with them.

There's a lot of RISK in this election year for voters and that's why the voters want this Democratic primary to go on until at least June 3rd. They aren't looking for a beer or bowling buddy this time around. They want more 'substance' and steadiness--not sex appeal or charm. Both Obama and Clinton need the SUPER-DELEGATES TO WIN!! Voters want to be really sure this time around. And so far, they aren't sure.

[Beowoof]

So Obama should concede? Robert Kennedy would have lost to Nixon? So what do you propose Obama do? Outwardly admit that America just won't go for a crappy bowler?

[Oldchef]

We lost 1968 because the best candidate got murdered, the "grownups" in the party decided that all that anti-war nonsense wasn't going to fly, progressives were shut out, refused seats at the convention, anti-war demonstrations turned into riots by police over reacting. The "grownups" appointed Humphrey the candidate, negating all the primary results (sound kinda familiar?), and all the progressives that RFK had inspired stayed home on election day. We ended up with Nixon and 6 more years of war. The corporatists won and "we the people" got shafted. We could be in danger of the same scenario here 40 years later with the super-delegates destroying the progressive movement again in the name of some ridiculous claim that "he's just not electable".

[websmith]

The American people already feel like their government ignores them. The idea is for a state's elected representatives to go to Washington and serve and protect the interests of their constituents. Can you imagine, if all of these people lived in D.C. and only imagined that they knew what was going on with the people that they are supposed to represent? They are already out of touch.

As far as change. Perhaps it's the wrong thing to wish for. It seems like we have already had plenty of it. We used to have dollars. Now we have change. At least it will soon be worth more than the dollars that they are printing. About 40 years ago, we owed nothing. Now we owe $10 trillion dollars. That's a pretty good chunk of change not to mention that we also now have no money. It makes you wonder where the money for these programs like Hillary care are supposed to come from and where the $140 billion worth of tax rebates came from. We also have no money to fight any wars, especially illegal wars that are literally just criminal acts. We used to have jobs. Now millions of them are gone and we have let decades of expensive, protective, content legislation go for naught. We used to be just held with suspicion in the rest of the world. Now we are outwardly hated. The changes are too many to mention. Maybe it's something else that we want.

[SethandRay]

Interesting piece... media continues to be unreliable. Get your information from the ground!
http://sethandray.wordpress.com