home

Bipartisanship

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Stoiller riffs on Atrios piece and adds this interesting tidbit from a conversation with an Iowan.:

[H]e said that he hopes that Obama and Clinton can run on the same ticket, and if they can't get along and do that in a bipartisan way, he'll be disillusioned with politics.

It is kind illuminating isn't it? This guy seems to think Clinton and Obama are in different parties and if they can get together we can achieve "bipartisanship." My question is who does he think the Republican is?

< IA Iowa Poll: Dead Heat | Will Durham Be Effective? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bipartisanship | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I completely disagree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Key on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    I completely disagree with your reasoning.

    COMPARE THIS:
    "I hope my brother Bob and my sister Clara can get over their fighting and differences, because I will be totally disillusioned with spending time with the family during future holidays."

    WITH THIS:
    "I hope my co-worker Bob and my next door neighbor Clara, who have met each other a couple of times at parties I've held at my house, can work out their disagreements and throw me a big party, or I'll be totally disillusioned."

    The way I read it, the use of "bipartisanship" in your quote (which by the way, sound's like Stoiller's word choice, not necessarily the person he was talking to) means Clinton and Obama working together AND working with the other side.

    Sure enough, Stoiller goes on in his post: "When a leader says everyone should get along or else politics is meaningless, supporters believe that leader.  And then they will often be upset and disappointed when there's no pony.  I don't understand why pandering to this illusion is considered necessary; if Obama or Edwards or Clinton said that partisanship is good and that it's time for Republican rule to end because that party is a group of warmongering greedheads, people would believe that.  Out in blogostan we get this, but I'm not sure how to transmit this to the rest of the political system."

    Doesn't Stoiller mean EVERYONE when he says "everyone"?  Not just Dems getting along with Dems (that is NOT Obama's message) but Everyone working with Everyone....

    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    then Stoller lied. And my post makes no sense.

    the word "bipartisanship" means something. If Stoller did what you say, then he lied.

    Parent

    Why must he have lied? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Key on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    I agree.  Your post makes no sense.

    The quote you take from his post does not "quote" the person he spoke with.  I think you just read his post wrong.

    Again, "if they can't get along and do that in a bipartisan way" means TWO things, not one.  Saying "bipartisan way" is NOT an inverted reiteration of "can't get along" - it is saying a second thing:

    1. He wants Obama and Clinton to get along
    2. AND not just get along but also work in a bipartisan way - with everyone.

    My reading is just as valid as yours.

    I can't believe you would call Stoller a liar!!!

    .
    .
    .
    .
    Note: I did not say you DID call him a liar, just that you would call him a liar if you mis-read him.  Wanted to clarify that, in case you mis-read my statement above.

    Parent

    Ooo... a bug in the formatting? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Key on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    One other thought - I agree with the general problem Atrios started this whole thing off with, and has since expanded on.  I especially like his final words on the topic: "People disagree about stuff. Grow up."

    Good advice, don't you think?

    Oh, and I think it's funny that Obama basically expounds a position of inclusion in politics.  Obama is the ultimate Big Tent Democrat, isn't he?!  Hehe.  (Just having a little fun with that one.  Don't get to worked up on that one.

    In a few hours, Iowa will be all over and hopefully people can calm down for at least a few minutes.

    Stoller comments a bit more on the bipartisan/independent disease. It's a message the mainstream media - and many politicians - have been transmitting for years, that somehow politics is about finding ways to get along. It isn't. It's a contest to put people in power so they can enact a particular agenda. There isn't a "good" set of policies which would be implemented if only we stopped arguing. People argue because they disagree and because policies impact different people and sectors and interest groups in different ways.

    There's nothing wrong with bipartisanship, and given the peculiar nature of our government and recent voting patterns it's often necessary to pass legislation. But it isn't a goal in and of itself. In fact, it isn't important at all except to the extent to which it enables things to happen.

    People disagree about stuff. Grow up.

    Parent

    Bipartisanship is a clear and firm word (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    Either the guy said bipartisanship or he did not.

    I was being facetious - I do not believe Stoller lied.

    I think the person quoted does not know what bipartisanship means or what a political party is.

     

    Parent

    after reading the entire post, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    two things become evident:

    1. the original speaker didn't really understand the meaning of bipartisanship; two wholly different groups working together for the common good.

    2. the poster didn't really seem to pick up on that basic definition failure, of the speaker. he assumed that the speaker was refering to the classic definition, when he most clearly wasn't.

    he should have asked the guy to clarify what he meant. perhaps he did, and just didn't bother to include that in his post.

    I didn't understand (none / 0) (#6)
    by taylormattd on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    that post either. It kind of looked to me like a kid who wanted Clinton to run as Obama's VP, and who didn't understand the meaning of the word bipartisanship. As if he believes bipartisanship means "everyone getting along."

    It's still kind of interesting, though. I actually think that what some of those Broder moron-pundits think it means. Everyone being nice and polite at the same dinner parties.

    Stoller has been writing good stuff from Iowa (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    He actually seems to be getting out and talking to people from Iowa.

    There's a certain amount of "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" feel to his stuff, but on the whole it's not as annoying as some of the other writing coming out of Iowa.

    What do people think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    the point of alloting power in a representative democracy is? It's as if they think there's only one way to deal with the problems a society faces, and that if everyone can just get together on them good solutions will come about.

    In fact, there are many ways to deal with any problem or situation, and each of them will have different advantages and disadvantages to different people and groups. To put it in its crudest form, it's about determining who will win and who will lose, who will have and who will not have at the end of the day.

    You can't both tax the CEO at the same rate as his secretary and at the same time tax the CEO at a higher rate. You can't both ensure people have the right to health care regardless of their financial status and at the same time allow private insurance companies to follow their bottom line instead of the dictates of medical care. You can't both go around invading other countries that haven't attacked you and kidnapping people off the street in order to torture them and at the same time lay claim to the moral high ground in international affairs.

    Our leaders have a platform where they can lay out a vision, set an agenda. They may not create reality in quite the sense the neocons meant it, but they do have the opportunity to set thinking and expectations in the directions they choose. When they start with a vision focused on compromise, when they don't take every advantage of that form of their power, they are failing us.

    if Obama or Edwards or Clinton said that partisanship is good and that it's time for Republican rule to end because that party is a group of warmongering greedheads, people would believe that.

    That's the essence of the problem with bipartisanship, if it blinds you or your followers to the chance to set a course according to your own values instead of compromising with someone else's.

    If however bipartisanship is simply a tactic used to further your actual highly partisan agenda, that's something quite different. Tactical bipartisanship I'd be quite on board with, though there are pitfalls to that as well. As a few people have said lately (Digby? I think among them), it was what destroyed GWB's presidency, the fact that the bipartisanship he promised was only tactical. I think that's wrong. Iraq and illegal domestic surveillance and Abramoff and a few dozen other scandals not to mention venality and incompetence were what destroyed GWB's presidency.

    Tactical bipartisanship that produced actual societal benefits like universal health care coverage, halting environmental degradation, better public education, and so on would hardly destroy a presidency.

    True (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    But it depends on their being bipartisan support for universal healthcare, halting environmental degradation, and better public education and so far there hasn't been.  I don't care what they say, elected Republican officials are going to fight any attempt at universal healthcare.  They made the decision in the 1990s to fight it no matter what and they're going to stick to that decision.  The reason is ideological - they believe if the Democrats reform healthcare, then the Democrats will restore some public confidence in government and the Democratic party's ability to govern.  Whatever political benefits they gain from working with democrats they believe will be outweighed by the democrats getting credit for healthcare reform.

    The environment?  They are starting to come around, but to date, Republicans are the reason that we haven't gotten better energy bills, including ones that fight global warming.  It's not the democrat's lack of willingness to compromise.  They just did to get the latest bill passed.

    Public Education?  The current Republican party hates public education - they have tried to destroy it through voucher programs and otherwise for decades.  Again, public education is a way to build voter confidence in government programs and the current Republican party is about privatizing government programs (witness what happened when they "rebuilt" New Orleans schools).  Public education also empowers the NEA, part of the democratic base.

    The reason we haven't had agreement on these issues isn't a lack of willingness of Democrats to compromise, it's the disinterest Republicans have in compromising on these issues.  The Republicans have become an ideologically driven party and treating them like a bunch of pragmatic problem-solvers isn't going to work.  

    Parent

    I understand what you're saying (none / 0) (#13)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:13:31 PM EST
    but I think you're failing to distinguish between Republican pols and Republican voters. I think the latter can be peeled away with good rebranding efforts and some tangible successes.

    Those Republicans who opposed universal healthcare did so not on its merits but on the most cynical political grounds, knowing it would be so successful with their own base that it would kill their party for a generation.

    I tend to think there's more support for those things than you're suggesting here. Heck, people still hold many liberal positions when polled, they just fail to identify them as liberal positions because of a generation of vilification.

    Let's hope we get a chance to see answers to this question actually play out.

    Parent

    Peeled Away - When? How? (none / 0) (#14)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    I agree in theory that Republican voters can be peeled away, but it's going to take several election cycles before that translates into changed behavior by elected Republicans.  In the meantime, elected Republicans, believing they can win those voters back, are going to obstruct the Democratic agenda, like they've been doing in Congress this term.

    That's the problem with not using partisan language - if you say the system is broken and democrats can fix it, instead of wooing Republican voters, you turn them into Democrats.  If you say I want to work with Republicans, they stay Republicans, although they might still vote for you.

    This election seems like a great opportunity to turn Republican voters into Democrats.  Indeed, I'd argue that's why the Broderists are pushing unity - they know the Republicans are in trouble and Democrats on the rise.  

    Parent

    Independents and Undecideds (none / 0) (#10)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    I'm beginning to think people are idiots (okay, I already pretty much think that). But I just read an article where a woman said she was still undecided about who to caucus for and when asked about Hillary Clinton (she had arranged for her friend, a Clinton supporter, to have lunch at a diner where Clinton was lunching), the undecided voter said she "had to learn more about her, but that she had all afternoon."  I wish I were kidding.  How can anyone in Iowa planning to caucus still need more information about Hillary Clinton?  Do they not have internet access there?  Or newspapers?  

    And then I read a story about an independent voter who had never caucused saying she was going to caucus tonight with Democrats because of economic concerns.  However, she still did not know - and had apparently not bothered to learn - HOW to caucus. She did not say who she intended to caucus for.

    I find it difficult to believe that either of these women will show up tonight.  And if they do, they'll probably be highly, er, flexible in their choices.  

    How about difficult to believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    that these are the people determining who our next president will be.

    Parent
    Democrats for Ron Paul (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    I didn't even write about the Democratic voter caucusing for Ron Paul.  She caucused for Edwards in 2004.  Why is she caucusing for Paul this year?  Is it his war stance?  Is defense of civil liberties?  No.  It's because her top two concerns are 1) the North American Super Highway and 2) the concern that they are going to replace the dollar with the North American equivalent of the Euro, the Amero.  So, from what I can tell, a democratic voter in one of the whitest states in the nation will be voting for Ron Paul because she's scared of the brown people.  Argh!


    Parent
    Bipartisanship | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment