The parties: over
The Cheneys, according to Maureen Dowd, regard “bipartisanship with the same contempt as multiculturalism and multilateralism.”
I haven’t written a great deal on multiculturalism, and pretty much nothing I can recall on multilateralism, but I can tell you right up front what I think of bipartisanship: it’s, you guessed it, contemptible.
And, from the archives, way back in 1997, here’s why:
Unspoken, but certainly implied by your favorite politico, is the notion that if both Democrats and Republicans can come to this particular agreement, it must therefore be a Good Thing. And farther down in the subtext is the notion that those two particular parties somehow manage to subsume the whole of American political belief; you got your Democrats, you got your Republicans, and what’s left isn’t worth a bucket of John Nance Garner’s bodily fluids. As any registered Libertarian will tell you — in those states where the bipartisan efforts of Republicans and Democrats have somehow failed to make it impossible actually to be a registered Libertarian — this is a crock.
Not that the L-word necessarily applies to me, with or without capitalization. Nor do any of these, specifically:
Add to the neither-first-nor-second-party political landscape the Perotistas, the wackos too conservative for the GOP, the few remaining card-carrying leftists, a large body of putatively-disaffected professional grumblers, and a far larger body of nonvoting cynics, and what you have is a repudiation of all that “bipartisan” stands for.
Clearly I’m disaffected, but no one is going to pay me to grumble. And if you want something that snarls at multiculturalism, try this.
(Via Ron Radosh.)
dawn summers »
16 October 2009 · 1:50 pm
I’m with you and (gulp) the Cheneys. I HATE bipartisanship, unless we really mean bending Republicans to my will…then maybe, but I’d still rather have then cry uncle and just admit defeat.
McGehee »
16 October 2009 · 2:09 pm
If “my” were interpreted to mean “possessed by a Democrat,” the above is pretty much what “bipartisanship” means among the Beltway elite — including Beltway Republicans, unfortunately.
Jeff Brokaw »
16 October 2009 · 4:38 pm
Full agreement here. As I commented at Tony Woodlief’s today, the real divide isn’t between Ds and Rs, it’s between government and we the people. Both Ds and Rs routinely make back-room deals to enrich and empower themselves at our expense.
dogette »
16 October 2009 · 5:32 pm
I, too, have no fondness for the whole “bipartisan let’s work together and all get along and move forward for the country blah blah blah” bullcrap meme. The differences are important and to be emphasized, not diluted and given up. Just my opinion, dullard that I am. I spend too much time reading the Founders and steeped in 1700s AmHist, that’s my problem.
paulsmos »
16 October 2009 · 8:57 pm
try this on …it’s called
“TRIBES”..http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/
CGHill »
16 October 2009 · 9:40 pm
Bill Whittle’s been on the blogroll here for several years.