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.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The salient point here is the new ownership of The Wall Street Journal. What I used to consider a Bible is now a hack piece of trash beholden to the damn Republicans, who piece by piece are gouging the soul out of America.
Another example of the media disconnect with reality was a piece last week that appeared in Fortune Magazine. The piece gushed over "McCain's Health Care Plan". McCain's plan, in case you're not familiar is "more of the same". It's essentially a privatization of health care. Forgive me but I thought that WAS the problem with our health care system? Too many people making money off of it like insurance companies, HMOs and Big Pharma that refuses to submit to price negotiation. They all want to charge whatever they feel like today and turn down claims if they so choose and the hell with everybody else. McCain's health care plan is a loser in every way it can possibly be looked at and with any luck he'll be a loser in November so we won't have to worry about this.
I'm just curious, does the WSJ take cheese with their whine...
HuffPost's Pick
I have to say I have fallen for the Huffington Post. I heard Ariana speak today on MPR. What a wonderful, fresh, poignant, speech. Absolutely refreshing. And when she spoke about being a fan of Paul Wellstone, we'll I felt as though I am finally home. Extraordinary. Outstanding. Fabulous. Fantastic.
Keep up the good work.
So the "the two parties have moved further apart on the ideological spectrum?" Are you kidding? Our two parties are so close ideologically it seems we really have only one party. They both do the beckoning of their rich backers at the expense of the people. For almost 8 years of Cheney/bush, you had to really dig long and hard to find anything that resembled an opposition party. No, we don't need bipartisanship now after Cheney/bush's one sided policies that have disproportionately benefited the very rich. No, now we need policies over the next 8 years that benefit the masses at the expense of the very rich; ala universal health care and sustaining social security. Consider that move to bipartisanship in 2016!
Bipartanship will only exist as long as people embrace political parties. What have either one of them done for you lately?
To paraphrase Jim Hightower, the middle of the road; the only thing you find there are yellow stripes and dead armadillo. Real change comes when you politically annihilate the opposition so they cannot gum up the works. Working, veto-proof majorities and a President in sync with that majority is what gets you change. I hope Barak gets all of the above mentioned. Otherwise it is going to be more of the same compromise governance.
Hello everybody,
I’m new to blogs. I’m so happy that I found this blog. I am so tired to having to listen to right wing radio when I wanted to hear about issues. Well you have to hand it to the Republicans. They will try anything. They know that they have run this country into the ground for the last seven years and it’s not a chance in he** that they will get back in power. So their newest trick, “with the help of the rich owned media”, it to try to convince the Democrats that what the people want is for us to work with them. I guest that they figure that they will throw everything against the wall until something stick.
Rep. Jim McCrery is full of it. He and all of the other Rethugs are the reason why there is no bipartisanship. Now that they may be evicted from office they are afraid and trying to divert the blame for the last eight years of Repug mess.
A couple years ago I heard Jimmy Carter quip that if you want to cut down on the amount of partisan bickering, you should elect Democrats.
Arianna, I had to check to make sure you were the blogger of the piece above. You mean we don't have to join all together with a good chorus of kum-by-ya with the Republicans? That is an Obama prime point. Unity. I have never wanted to do anything but defeat the Republicans, especially their foreign policy and their non-existent health care, But the man you find to be the best presidential candidate is wanting to join with the Republicans, lets find common ground, no problem shedding any primary core beliefs so that we can be unified. I am really surprised at this post. Obama has never been one for ideas and solutions and plans, etcfetera, because they produce disagreement and sides taken and sometimes inaction until the problems can be worked out. Obama thinks charisma will overcome, absolutely overcome. Never expected you would agree with that.
" 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."
the problem with the above is, that Obama is not mainstream, is not center, he is over the edge
left. We all will get to know Obama better, when the primary is over, and the run for the White House beginns. Hillary had to hold back the info she knows about him, the Cons won't hold back.
Obama is over-the-edge left? Don't make me laugh. You, dora, haven't a clue how large the political spectrum is. If Obama is far left, what does that make Dennis Kucinich and Russell Feingold? Obama isn't even the most liberal U.S. senator from Illinois.
Amen. I came here from a link at Tom Paine. I haven't been able to stand all of the Obama kool-aid at this site so I to was shocked to see that Ms. I am in love with Barry Obama would dare question his principle appeal and message. Does this portend that even Keith Olbermann may come out of his Kool-aid induced fog and see that the Precious is not perfect and does not have all of the answers?
So vote for McCain and shut up already with your childish nickname for Obama that no one but you uses.
I'm not voting for Obama either. Kucinich in the primary, Nader in the general. But I will leave the petulance to someone else.
HI!MJC,
We live in A country,within the world that we must share reguardless of our differencies.
One person does not have a monopoly on TRUTH or what's RIGHT.
When we UNDERSTAND that EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION AND A CONTRIBUTION
TO MAKE,LARGE OR SMALL,then we will be UNITED FOR THE GOOD.
I HEARD;"FREE AND FAIR DISCUSSION WILL EVER BE FOUND THE FIRMEST
FRIEND TO TRUTH".
Right on, Arianna, Ma'am, you give us hope.
Thanks for a great post.
Awesome Post Arianna!!!!
During the1930s a certain European nation was taken over by a political group whose appoint-a-
“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.”
— William E. Dodd
U.S. Ambassador to Germany
1937
Hi DanBest,
This is a reply to your comment (it's now buried)
No, haha you're not even close.
I believe in small government and a fiscally conservative position. However I am quite willing to make amends if there's an overriding benefit to the citizens
The governments job is to protect the rights of the citizens, aside from that it should be stripped away and rebuilt to reflect todays concerns without the burdens and outmoded skeletons of yesterday.
To me the far left is as dangerous as the far right. Neither have a grip on reality and both do more harm than good.
Yes these positions are important. Important as points of reference, but that's it.
The three trillion dollar economic budget made me physically ill. All who voted for that should be removed from office, and preferably put in jail.
The crew that lied to us and got us into Iraq should be held accountable, and should pay a heavy price for their crimes against the country.
But that might be considered to radical for you.
No Spin, that guy seems to defy the common wisdom of "nobody's perfect" by being wrong all the time.You saved me a lot of typing, there.
Very well put, Arianna
Once again, you have said it succinctly and to the point.
Obama should pick you for his VP! :)
Great article! Splitting the difference usually ends up with something that is only half right. There is no compromise on global warming. It is real; not half real. We don't need half a health-care system; we need a whole single-payer system.
"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."
Ironically, I think the answer to why Americans are so frustrated actually DOES lie somewhere in the middle of what Harwood/Sieb assert and Arianna argues. The reason why we're mad as hell is because there wasn't enough gridlock on a stupid, ill-advised and ill-planned Iraq War that was rushed into being BECAUSE the Dems were too friendly with the Repubs. On almost everything else, I agree with Harwood/Sieb that if they hung out more, the two parties would see the other side more as humans and less as demagogues
Jaradan, that is excellent and of course very very true. Thanks! I've always wondered why the D's on the hill, most of the time act like Mike Tyson, with an inferiority complex; they know they have the majority but don't want anybody to know it hence they keep their collective mouths shut -accomplishing nuttin'...
Good points. They have a job to do and that is to represent the will of the American People. Anything less than that is good enough reason to replace them next term, even if that replacement comes from their own party.
That would change things a lot.
Going to war is no small action of any government. Don't think the resolution to give Bush the option to use force in lue of the Iraqi government not allowing the inspectors to continue to do their job was anywhere close to the Congress' declaring war in 1941. But we have lost a lot of our own freedom and privacy simply because Congress trusted this president. In war times our nation rather depends upon that.
emmaco
"Bizarre reasoning. I suppose mens and womens restrooms should be the same size based on that logic..."
Now THAT is bizarre reasoning.
8
Also to emmaco -
"if you think tax breaks have any significance to any parent in America you are sadly mistaken. Think responsibilities, not rights."
I have a child and the tax breaks DO have significance to me. When you're struggling to make it, every little bit helps. You can't speak for all parents, so please don't presume to.
"Adopting kids is not the same as producing kids, and artificial fertilization is absurdly expensive for most young couples."
Gay couples are perfectly capable of "producing" children. Artificial insemination is free if you have a willing donor. More difficult for gay men to find a "womb" donor, but still possible. Case in point, my best friend has two mommies via the above process.
"Is the commitment level the same when it's not your biological kid? Tough call, especially when times get hard. "
This is a ridiculous question. Of course the commitment level is the same. Shame on you for even saying such a thing. You need to get out and meet some people who aren't just like you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
