The Bipartisanship Ruse
After describing the various factions in Congress and their positions on Iraq, David Brooks writes
In theory, it should be possible to get the 30 Republicans and the 30 Democrats who support the study group's framework together to embrace a common plan. But Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, is doing everything he can to prevent a bipartisan consensus. It's much better politically for the Democrats to stay united and force the Republicans to vote with the president.
Shorter Brooks: These 60 senators are the centrist saviors of the Republic who must forge a bipartisan consensus that recognizes the moderate proposals of the ISG and rises above petty politics.
In a word, bullshit.
This fetishization of "bipartisanship" on behalf of the nation's elite pundits and journalists is infuriating. As I've said before, instead of viewing bipartisanship for what it is--a process--it is instead cherished as something false: an end unto itself. Why, you should ask yourself, ought two very different political parties agree on anything? Why should we expect this false consensus to arise from a divided Senate that has, for every Iraq vote, split almost perfectly along party lines? Democrats want to end the war. And yes, of course, there are shades of difference within that basic framework, just as Republicans are united to continuing George Bush's disastrous war, despite individually having different ideas about how to do it. The two sides represent change on one hand and inaction on the other. That is a very real division whose numbers do not reflect the wishes of the American people; if the Senate proportionately represented the public's wishes there would easily be enough votes to override a presidential veto. But the United States Senate is not a proportionately representational body. It is designed to be deliberative, exclusive, elite, and to a certain degree, undemocratic. Senators were not originally popularly elected, for instance. The filibuster allows the minority to prevent majority rule. And make no mistake, the Republicans are filibustering Iraq legislation, just as they are filibustering (obstructing) most Democratic legislation. Apparently the press can't be bothered to note this, or point out the GOP's hypocrisy in their threat to abolish the filibuster two years ago, when it was inconvenient for their conservative court-packing designs.
So given these institutional realities, creating a veto- and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate requires not only party discipline, but major defections from the other side. That is the voting coaltion Harry Reid is attempting to put together. But to David Brooks, David Broders and other guardians of comity, Reid is a shallow politician. If these fetishizers of bipartisanship were honest they would simply come out and say that they oppose the Democrats and support the Republicans' position on Iraq. Instead they cowardly hide behind bipartisanship and write their columns from on high. This attitiude is what infuriates me. It must be overcome to restore our political dialogue to something substantive, honest and meaningful.