Speaking Of Bipartisanship

Steve Benen discusses what bipartisan means in 2009.

David Waldman reminded me the other day that Republican opponents of Social Security and Medicare used some of the same ridiculous arguments then that we're hearing now. That's absolutely true. It's worth noting, though, that in those eras, there were plenty of centrist and center-left Republicans who rejected the nonsense and worked with Democrats on achieving progressive policy goals.

Those days are long gone. We're now watching negotiations with Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, who are not only conservative, but fundamentally reject the goals the majority hopes to achieve through reform.

This is hopelessly twisted, and evidence of a political system that not only doesn't work, but doesn't know how to work. To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, bills with bipartisan support have traditionally been the result of one party reaching out to moderates from the other party to put together a reasonably good-sized majority.

Under the current circumstances, though, the expectations for the majority are skewed -- Republicans have almost entirely excised moderates from their ranks, and voters have handed Democrats a huge majority. It creates a ridiculous dynamic -- demanded by Republicans, touted by the media, and accepted by a few too many Democrats -- that the majority's legislation is only legitimate if it's endorsed by some liberals and some conservatives, as if the parties and ideologies of members aren't supposed to have any meaning. As if it's Democrats' fault Republicans have become too conservative. As if elections don't matter.

I think since November 2000 we've completely established the fact that elections don't matter...not as far as liberalism and progressivism goes. Conservatives can never die, only the actors who play them. Despite the fact that America has given the Democrats the White House, 60% of the Senate and 59% of the House, they will never have a mandate. Ever. The Village demands that America is a "center-right nation", where center-right is defined as anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-intellectual, anti-regulatory Goldwater reactionism. Democrats can never win a mandate, Republicans can only temporarily lose one by acting like Democrats.

So no, elections don't matter because the big media companies and the corporate lobbying behemoths controlling the Village never change. As I said yesterday, the definition of bipartisan is "Democrats roll over and give the Republican Party 99% of what they want, then claim that 1% as victory." I'd have to add that in 2009, that 1% becomes the focus of Democrats being "completely intransigent" and "not willing to work with Republicans."

Sooner or later though, something has to change. I'm mildly sure that the Blue Dogs got a glimpse of that future today if they kept fighting the President on this. But we'll see how this goes in the Senate.

This problem is much larger than health care. it's the fact that the GOP still thinks it runs Washington, and the Village is backing them up. Maybe Obama should start cutting them off at the knees once in a while.

[UPDATE 3:47 PM] Speaking of the GOP still running Washington, what Double G said:

There are many motives for publishing "GOP-on-the-rise" stories. It's virtually certain to generate a Drudge link, Politico's holy grail. It ensures appearances on GOP-friendly cable news and radio talk shows. It solidifies relationships with dirt-peddling right-wing operatives who drive mindless scandals and distractions in a Democratic administration. And it earns a gold star and pat on the head from right-wing polemicists in the never-ending quest of establishment journalists to prove they are not part of The Liberal Media, the goal which Mark Halperin openly embraced on his knees while pleading with Hugh Hewitt, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to stop thinking that he is One of Them, when he was hawking the book he co-wrote with Politico's Harris.

Perception is reality. Reality is overrated.