I'm Really, Really Tired of "Bipartisanship"

I find it funny that there is such increased attention placed on the "need for bipartisanship." It was a bedrock of presidential candidate Obama's campaign -- one of his biggest goals. And, of course, every progressive-thinking person touts that the way to national bliss and harmony is via "bipartisanship."

I disagree. As a matter of fact, I believe that bipartisanship is almost completely incompatible with our two-party system of government. Given that the country has coalesced around, essentially, two broad approaches (I wouldn't dare say "philosophies") about how to govern, it is inevitable that any major issue will have conflicting ideas about the "correct" plan of action.

And, by its very nature, a "bipartisan" solution means that one (or both) parties have compromised their principles -- if not totally capitulated. And, almost always, it is the minority party that had to take the "pragmatic" stance.

Of course, now that the Democrats control the White House and Congress, just about every media voice wants "bipartisanship," because they know it would have to be the Republicans ceding ground to the Democrats.

In November 2008, the French economist Pascal Salin (Mises Institute profile) gave a lecture for receiving the Gary Schlarbaum Prize for lifetime achievement in liberty. During the talk, he shared his perspective about believing in your principles, and also learning from others:

This gradual approach led me to a conviction: one has to be tolerant with people, not tolerant with ideas. Most people have not had the privilege of being confronted with right ideas; they have to discover them and there are several possible ways to make such a discovery. This is why one has to be tolerant with persons and accept that they may have different views or, why not, a tiny bit of truth. But, whenever you have strong convictions, you must not be tolerant in the sense that you must not accept any compromise of your beliefs.

Why is this discussion about the false promise of bipartisanship occurring on a blog that strives to shed light on the overreaching abuse of the State? Because everyone knows that compromise is the lubricant of the legislature; the legislator loses little by compromising and horse-trading -- in fact, he or she is enriched by it -- but the constituency has to suffer through watered-down legislation, or legislation that it clearly does not want but is dismissively handed. (As evidenced by the overwhelming disapproval of the original banking bailout by the citizens, which apparently mean nothing to the members of Congress who voted for it, anyway.)

Because, due to the scientifically-gerrymandered districts, Representatives are largely shielded from having to suffer for their unpopular votes. Instead of compromising leading to a better quality of life for the citizenry, it is really a matter of collecting chits from fellow Representatives, to be redeemed in the interest of the following, in order of importance: 1) getting re-elected, 2) rewarded special-interest groups and financial backers, 3) strengthening fellow Representatives, 4) looking after one's constituency.

Anytime in the next two years (at least) that "bipartisanship" is mentioned, you know that a someone's principles are going to evaporate.