Nobody's Right If Everybody's Wrong

Matt Stoller reports that he's hearing tons of stuff on the radio in Iowa about the alleged thirst for bipartisanship among the voters (which I also wrote about the other day in a post called "Bipartisan Zombies.") I hear it too, from a lot of non-political junkies, who are persuaded that the government is broken because of all the partisan bickering. It's a difficult conversation to have because they're half right. The government is broken, but it's not because of some sort of partisan war in which each side refuses to budge. The government is broken because one party has adopted a take-no-prisoners scorched earth philosophy and the political establishment continues to hold the victims equally responsible for the carnage.

When I wrote that earlier post, I shamefully failed to mention a great article by Paul Glastris from a few years back in the Washington Monthly. It should be read by those who are unimpressed by us intemperate liberal bloggers screeching about the convenient exhumation of the bipartisan zombie now that it appears Democrats may be the new majority:

There's something similar about the way the national press has been describing the polarization of our political culture over the last few years. It is a cliché to observe that the parties have drawn further apart, the center no longer holds, and partisans on both sides have withdrawn further into mutual loathing and ever more-homogenous and antagonistic groupings. Where the analysis goes wrong is in its assumption, either explicit or implicit, that both parties bear equal responsibility for this state of affairs. While partisanship may now be deeply entrenched among their voters and their elites, the truth is that the growing polarization of American politics results primarily from the growing radicalism of the Republican Party.

This is the sort of reality that most journalists know perfectly well to be true but cannot bring themselves to say, though this increased polarization drives them crazy. Almost without exception, mainstream reporters in Washington see moderation and bipartisanship as inherently virtuous. (Indeed, reverence for these qualities is essentially the defining belief of the Washington establishment.) Read almost any account of bills becoming law, and you'll notice the reporter's obvious affection for centrists who work both sides of the aisle. Yet they are unable to honestly explain to readers what's causing the decline of bipartisanship, thanks to another form of press bias: The desire not to seem biased. As practiced by the modern press, "objective" journalism requires avoiding the appearance of favoring one party over the other--even when the facts merit such a treatment. That's why, when news stories discuss polarization, they bend over backward to avoid laying the "blame" on the political right.

So do the Village elders, Nunn and Cohen, who have awakened from a very long nap and decided that it's time to end the polarization --- just as the mainstream Democrats are poised to win a mandate. Here's an article by William Cohen and Sam Nunn from yesterday's Boston Globe:

Central to the wave of unease and negativity surging throughout the country is the realization that the values and virtues that made America a source of strength, stability, and inspiration throughout the world are now in disrepair.

Our falling dollar and soaring budget and trade deficits reflect the overindulgence of our appetites and neglect of prudent fiscal planning, discipline, and savings. Extended military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed extraordinary stress upon the brave men and women of our all-volunteer force (Guard and Reserve), putting pressure on the Pentagon to lower physical, mental, and moral standards and to raise the age limits for new recruits. As a result of pursuing ill-conceived or mismanaged policies, we have unsettled our allies and emboldened our adversaries.

The failures of bridges in Minneapolis and levees in New Orleans are harsh metaphors for the reckless disregard for the need to invest in the critical infrastructure that protects our citizens and propels our economy.

The absence of sound fiscal, tax, and energy policies has eroded our international competitiveness and subjected us to regional instabilities and to the pricing policies of oil cartels and authoritarian leaders who are eager to flex their new muscle. Our leadership in science and technology is challenged by powers in Asia and Europe as we debate the validity of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Stirring words and all true. Imagine if they'd been written while the Republicans were perpetrating all those crimes instead of when they are on the verge of being repudiated by the American people? Who knows? It might have even made a difference.

What they are giving is essentially the Democratic critique of the Republican agenda, is it not? Yet instead of backing the Democrats, these gurus of irrelevancy are agitating for bipartisanship, something virtually designed to create policies somewhere between the status quo they decry and further right wing travesty. Why?

It may just be that these political elders are just timorous men who were too afraid to speak up until after the Republican thugs were so weakened that they couldn't harm them. There are many such people in politics. But I don't think that's the real agenda here. As I wrote before, I think this is actually just the standard establishment response to the prospect of real progressive governance. They will happily back a neocon fascist Republican (or a properly pedigreed manchild) before they'll allow Democrats to make government serve the average American.

As Swopa wrote the other day about the rumored Bloomberg campaign, which closely tracks the Cohen/Nunn "unity" effort:

Whatever anyone associated with this would-be Bloomberg boomlet might say about their effort, it's hard to overlook that it coincides -- as did the Perot candidacy in 1992 -- with an apparent collapse in GOP popularity. By giving disenchanted Republican and independent voters someone else to vote for besides a Democrat, Perot helped hold Clinton below 50% of the popular vote... which GOP politicians then used as an excuse for intensified partisanship and a no-holds-barred effort to block the Dems from passing health care and other legislation.

Of course, when the GOP took over Congress in 1994 (and again after the Dubya usurpation, as Digby notes), these sensitive lovers of comity and collaboration held their tongues. But the prospect of another Democrat in the White House, paired with control of the Congress -- now that's a crisis. One that calls for not just the standard round of op-eds and talking-head TV appearances, but a massively well-financed third-party candidacy using a billionaire's wealth as an artificial substitute for popular support.

[...]

The sole reason for his candidacy will be to hold the Democratic nominee below 50% of the vote again (or as close to it as possible), thereby enabling further GOP intransigence -- and deepening the country's political paralysis, rather than ending it.

I'm sure a lot of people really are saying they just want the fighting in Washington to stop. It's tiresome. I wish it would go away too. But they want health care and out of Iraq and a good economy and a decent future for their kids more. And because the conservatives are determined to thwart that, progressives have an obligation to fight for those things, even if it requires a lot of irritating and unpleasant squabbling and ignoring the establishment elders.

* And for those of you who are too young to remember Sam Nunn in all his glory, here's a reminder of his finest hour in the Clinton administration: sandbagging him nine days after the inaugural (and a year long campaign during which he said nothing) on gays in the military.