Wednesday :: Jan 30, 2008

Greenwald on "Bipartisanship"


by Turkana

When you hear people blither about the need for "bipartisanship" in Washington, you can be sure that they really mean Democratic capitulation. Glenn Greenwald provides a long list of controversial issues on which Congressional Democrats have split their votes, while Republicans have voted unanimously, or nearly unanimously, in support of Bush.

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

Leaving aside how shallow and, shall we say, unserious is this endless chirping for more "bipartisanship" -- as though it's a magic feel-good formula for resolving actual policy differences -- it's hard to imagine how there could possibly be any more "bipartisanship" in Washington even if that were the only goal. Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

Go take a look.

For all the wringing of hands and rending of garments by the middle-brow High Broderites, the partisanship and acrimony in Washington have come from one side. The Republican side. Calls for more "bipartisanship" are nothing more than calls for even more Republican triumphalism.

Turkana :: 2:42 PM :: Comments (4) :: Digg It!