Bipartisan competition will tend to be rarer when the parties are ideologically coherent. And that’s what we have right now — almost every Democrat in congress is more liberal than almost every Republican. That makes bipartisan cooperation difficult. The roots of this polarization, however, are structural and not really lamentable. The old era of bipartisan cooperation was grounded in the parties having substantial ideological overlap and that, in turn, was a consequence of Jim Crow and the existence of a weird one-party state in the apartheid South where the one party was the Democrats even though the region was generally more conservative in ideological terms. That era’s not going to come back and we shouldn’t want it to come back, even if we deem certain aspects of its passing to be lamentable.
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled May 10, 2024The censorship of pro-Palestinian views has become so routine. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 10, 2024Now this is really gonna bug me. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 9, 2024Free Speech on Campus #PoliCartoon
- Untitled May 9, 2024Free Speech on Campus #PoliCartoon
- Untitled May 8, 2024"I won't vote for someone who supports genocide" IS a valid response, and one I entirely respect. I'm furious at Joe Biden and the idea of voting for him sickens me. Nonetheless, I think people should vote for Biden. Let me give a few reasons why. (thread) [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 10, 2024
Hi,
As a former minor legislator I can say that bipartisan is more rational than the MSM and pundits would have you believe. Yes, it’s cutting deals and making sausage which isn’t so bad unless some fundies or corporatists are tossing sawdust in. Most leges are actually decent folks with some nutbaggery added. Just like every one else you know. The diff comes in when the agenda is all-consuming.
Most sane people don’t go looking to crush the school funding by introducing Creationism in the new wrapper as did Dover. But, it was a two-fer. If the fundies won, kids would get crappy education forcing parents to homeschool or privatize. If lost, the school district would be broke and the choices remain the same.
Can’t reason with the wackies…just have to keep them away from anything they could damage…just as their intellectual equals, the terrible two year old.
Well, I think it depends on the political system. In a highly-granular system like the kinds of chaos you get with proportional representation, it obviously requires alliances and deal-making to get anything done.
However, in a 2 party system, that’s a different story. Voters already had to compromise by selecting one of only two options – if those two options cooperate, then there’s really only 1 option.
I think that when people say that they want bipartisan cooperation, what they’re really saying is, “Quit squabbling over the stuff we disagree on, and hurry up and do the stuff that all sane people think is a good idea.”
You know, like healthcare for poor sick children. (What is this, the third time he vetoed it?)
That said, I’m not convinced that anybody other than politicians and talk-show pundits are pushing for bipartisan cooperation as their number-one issue.
I think the soviet union helped with bipartisanism as well. A serious, and common enemy brought a lot of common ground.
Bipartisan is actually cutting the deal, scratching each other’s back. I offer a tax break to you and I get something I want in return.
Given the political theories now in DC, you can’t be pragmatic. The Right Wing Conspiracy will not have cushy jobs after their term is up nor will they be invited to spout nonsense on TV if they break ranks. They also take care of their own. David “diapers” Vitter has not felt inconvenienced. Foley wasn’t tossed until the public outcry became irrefutable. Ricky Santorum fell lightly with his golden parachute.
The trick is to toss too many out for the wingnut welfare system to handle. Most are true believers in free markets. Let’s give them first-hand experience. After a few years of seeing how little the market values BobJones U or RobertsonU, maybe they’ll have compassion and understanding.
This might lead to a more rational legislature.
Bipartisanship doesn’t have that great a historical record.
Remember when we were told that Congress would be forced to work more closely together because the minority-majority split was so slim, and the President’s mandate was nonexistent? What really happened is that the two sides became more entrenched, their power base being too fragile to afford any concession of power to the other side. Where one group dominates, it can afford to be generous; the less empowered group can afford to compromise via the excuse of its weakness.
Of course, what also happened was that the President demanded and received unwaivering partisan allegiance from his party, who continue in that vein against all reason, dignity, national interest or public demand.
Still, I like Yglesias’ take on bipartisanship. It points out certain unacknowledged aspects of white privilege inherent to past forms of oppression. It also serves as a good argument for a more pluralistic form of representative government, a world beyond two parties.
One vote here for partisanship! We’ve had so much compromise we barely know what we stand for anymore! Let’s figure out what we want/need and organize for it! If we are able to win some reforms in the process fine. But we’re never gonna get single payer health care; an end to the Iraq War, etc. unless we organize for it!