Greenwald - Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/18/bipartisanship/index.html

"...Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.

Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on...


...Bipartisanship -- cooperation and agreement among the two parties -- is the standard operating practice of Washington, and it has been for many years. It's certainly been vastly more common than the "partisan gridlock" that conventional Beltway wisdom spouters relentlessly complain is plaguing our political process. There has been far more harmony and agreement among the two parties, particularly their leaders, than there has been acrimony and discord. I'm asking this literally: how would it have even been possible to have substantially more bipartisanship over the last eight years than we actually had?


...That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class."

[kath]

1. Thanks - I was just this minute getting ready to start a thread on this - and right before I pushed

"post", the your title had popped up on the list of 10 Most Recent Posts.

Greenwald hits it out of the park once again.

[kath]

2. More good excerpts from that piece:

Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions. The Bush administration committed war crimes, broke long-standing surveillance laws, politicized prosecutions, and explicitly claimed the right to break our laws, yet Congress did nothing about any of that except to authorize most of it, and investigated virtually none of it. With regard to many of those transgressions, key Democratic leaders were briefed at the time they were implemented and quietly acquiesced, did nothing to stop any of it. Both parties are in virtually unanimous agreement that our highest political leaders should be exempt from accountability under the rule of law even for the grave crimes that have been committed.

As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get? {emphasis mine}

Over the last eight years, one can locate a couple of exceptions to this lockstep cooperation in the domestic policy realm, where Democrats managed to deny Bush's wishes -- the failure of Bush's Social Security privitization scheme and some isolated disputes over the magnitude of tax cuts. And there have been some Democratic initiatives -- SCHIPs funding and mandating more home-time for troops -- which were vetoed or filibustered. But one is very hard pressed to find any meaningful examples beyond those isolated cases. Indeed, the bulk of Bush's most substantial defeats -- immigration reform, Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal -- came as a result of opposition from the Right, not from Democrats.

[slipslidingaway]

3. Thanks, it is hard to pick out which pieces to post...

reminds me of what Senator Byrd said during the IWR debate.

We might as well hang a sign out front that says "Gone Fishing"

[kath]

5. Oh, I wasn't being critical of you in any way. The whole damn article was so good.

I hope I didn't offend you. You did fine. Just wanted to get more of it out there - it was very hard to choose what to excerpt.

I really need to start reading Greenwald every day - he's SOOO good.

"Gone Fishing" is right. The Dems have been (w/ rare exceptions) nothing but enablers of Bushco.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Offended, not at all, appreciative yes :) The "problem" with

Greenwald, and some others, is that they criticize both parties. That was fine when Bush was in the spotlight, but does not seem to appeal to many when the Dems are on the receiving end.

Thanks :)

[ColbertWatcher]

4. The GOP have been using the specter of "bipartisanship" to force their extremist agenda.

I thought the election was a clear indication that Americans did not agree with GOP ideology, philosophy or policies.

If there is to be any "bipartisanship" the GOP are going to have to start making concessions and start cooperating with the majority of Americans.

Thank you for posting this.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Now that is just too logical...

"...If there is to be any "bipartisanship" the GOP are going to have to start making concessions and start cooperating with the majority of Americans."

Thanks for the push :)


Democratic leader says party won’t turn left

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/party-wont-turn-left-dem-leader-says-2008-11-18.html

"As the House prepares to elect its leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is challenging the idea that the expanded Democratic majority and its leaders will make a hard left turn.

“For the first time in decades, we are a true national majority party—and if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one,” Hoyer (D-Md.) is to say in a speech today at the National Press Club, according to excerpts of his remarks obtained by The Hill..."

[ColbertWatcher]

10. I love when politicians talk like that!

If politicians were ever truthful, there would be no such thing as term limits!

I can't wait for the next session of Congress to begin!

LOL!

[slipslidingaway]

13. Next session of Congress - there are no excuses. n/t

[Fumesucker]

19. LOL.. Wanna bet? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

24. No, there Should be no excuses would have been a more

accurate statement.

[Senator]

6. "Bipartisan" Torturing War Criminals Remain UnImpeached

The rest is just window dressing.

---

[slipslidingaway]

9. And that is the sad truth :( n/t

[mhatrw]

11. Big Kick! And I wish I could Lieberman a swift kick as well! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

14. Thanks and yes for what he did not do! n/t

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

15. Thank you :) n/t

[Solly Mack]

18. It was my pleasure :)

Thank you for the article

[Individualist]

16. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

17. Thanks ... n/t

[screembloodymurder]

20. I posted a similar line of thinking in here earlier today and was blasted.

Then I read Greenwald and realized I'm not the only one thinking this push for bipartisanship is bogus.

[kath]

23. Well, I wouldn't have blasted you. All this "bipartisanship" talk is **extremely** bogus.

The MightyWurlitzer is just trying to stifle Democrats and deny that 8 years of Repug rule has been an utter disaster.

[slipslidingaway]

26. You know what they say about great minds :)) n/t

[screembloodymurder]

21. K&R

The tone has changed, but everything else stays the same.

[Astrad]

22. Greenwald misses an important point

America is a politically fragile nation. It exists under a very slim consensus mostly affirmed by national security and foreigh threats (real or perceived). Domestically America is riven by vast differences in ideologies. To be simplistic about it: what do the majority of New Yorkers have in common with the majority of Texans? The discussion of bipartisanship symbolically affirms the idea of a national consensus even if it is illusory. The fear is if it fails, the acrimony and divisiveness that would be unleashed could be irreparable.

That's not to say they had to let Joe Lieberman back in, they didn't. But they do constantly have to espouse bipartisanship to bolster the myth of 'one nation'.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Not sure I would say that he missed the point as much as the

issue you addressed was not the focus of his article. As he pointed out there have been many times when members have crossed the isle.

You make some valid points, finding the compromise between differing groups will always be a challenge.

[LWolf]

25. Way too much.

Thanks for this post.

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

28. YW and I agree that there has been too much. n/t