The Essential Emptiness of Broderism Revisited

I liked this from Stanley Fish on the emptiness of "bipartisanship:"

the phrase “common ground” is trickier than might first appear, for there are (at least) two kinds of common ground – one philosophical and one pragmatic – and the odds of success will change dramatically depending on which you are hoping to find. If you are seeking the philosophical version of common ground, you have entered a conversation that has been going on for thousands of years. The aim of that conversation is to identify the values or needs all men and women share simply by virtue of being human.

Countries, customs, economies and political systems differ greatly, but if there were something common to all of them – something cross-cultural or even trans-cultural – it could serve as the basis of cooperation even between those who disagree on almost everything. Even in the midst of conflict that appears to hold out no hope of resolution, the gridlock (one of our favorite words these days) could be broken if the warring parties reminded themselves that although they are divided on many issues, something basic unites them. Invoking “the welfare of the American people” (or some other facile piety) won’t do it, because what best promotes that welfare is precisely what people are arguing about. It has to be something at once deeper and more precise, something with an appeal so universal that merely to name it is enough to get combatants to lay down their swords and beat them into plowshares.

What Broder and Lieberman and Klein and Obama think is by merely invoking "common ground" and "bipartisanship" you have done something meaningful. Anyone not an idiot knows this is nonsense. Lieberman and Obama certainly know this. I doubt Broder does. Klein may not either. It is just political posturing. The essential emptiness of Broder-ism, Lieberman-ism and Obama-ism.

< Pyschodrama in the Courtroom | Sunday Talk Schedule >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    at least rachel ray produces (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 02:58:55 AM EST
    something useful: cooking tips and recipes. that, and she's easy on the eyes. :) broder merely wastes scare, allocable resources. he's been a bloviating gasbag for years, why he's still published is a mystery to me.

    bipartisanship? reaching out? common ground? my ass! there is nothing to be reached, the republicans have had 6 straight years of controlling all three branches of government. they've done an abysmal job. who the hell needs input from those losers? if they'd had any good ideas, presumably they'd have enacted them into law by now.

    nope, screw them, and all the horses they rode in on. if they want to get on the bandwagon, great. if not, the bandwagon rolls over them. goodbye and good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Crying (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 06:53:07 AM EST
    cpinva... Right. And may I assume you won't be crying like Left was after the election in '04 when the wheel turns again in '08??

    Broderism right up your alley, Jim? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    Or just the "Emptiness" part?

    Broder (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    Broder's prominence is as mysterious to me as Rachel Ray's. One naive explanation relies on the American popular culture rewarding mediocrity. Otherwise, Broder is the guy that all through the 90's saw the rise of Republicans in California (a clown act if you ask me).

    Klein is not much smarter or less co-opted. Lieberman invented duplicity and made moral stands smell quite bad.

    Obama? Why him, he has hardly started and his analytical ability is way higher than the C+ other mentionees.