Back when I was growing up, there was some genuine bipartisanship in politics. This didn't mean that people didn't fight hard for issues they cared about, or that no sharp elbows were ever to be seen. It did mean, however, that people's positions were not wholly dictated by their political affiliation, or by the decisions of the leadership of their parties; and that people from different parties were sometimes prepared to work with one another to come up with compromises that they could all support. I really value this sort of bipartisanship; in fact, I might as well be some sort of poster child for the willingness to reach out across political boundaries and engage my opponents in civilized discourse.And yet I opposed Joe Lieberman. How can this be?
The answer, strange though it might seem to David Brooks, is that what I value is a genuine willingness to work with people of good will in the opposing party, as opposed to being willing to work with people in the opposing party per se. I would be very happy if there were, in practice, no distinction between the two. But there is. When you are dealing with a party whose members of Congress march in lockstep with the administration, an administration that shows no interest whatsoever in working with their opponents, occasions for genuine bipartisanship will be few and far between.
As far as I'm concerned, my real commitment to reaching out to people of good will among my political opponents does not imply anything whatsoever about my dealings with Karl Rove, or Tom DeLay, or Dick Cheney, or George W. Bush, any more than, back in the late 60s (when so many pundits' views of the Democratic party seem to have been fixed in amber), a Republican's commitment to bipartisanship would have implied a willingness to work cooperatively with the SDS.
I value Democrats who are willing to reach out to Republicans like Chuck Hagel or Olympia Snowe, and Republicans who are willing to reciprocate. I do not value Democrats who are willing to engage in the kind of fake bipartisanship that Grover Norquist (quoting Dick Armey) called "another name for date rape." Still less do I value those who give George W. Bush and his destructive policies rhetorical cover, and at crucial moments join Bush's minions as they stick shivs in Democrats.
Whatever the name for that is, it's not bipartisanship, and I want no part of it.
This is absolutely dead on. Any time you doubt the need to embrace partisanship in modern American politics, remember that quote from Norquist. To the right, bipartisanship is nothing more than "date rape." Feel free to sign up for that if you like. Me? I'm going to do everything I can to oppose it.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
