Why Democrats Should Try Bipartisanship

Reader Comments
Back to article

According to recent IRS statistics, 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes. The remaining 53% pay ALL the income taxes. You want conservatives to be 'happy' about this? Should we act suprised when liberals raise our taxes even more? The IRS has become the new national welfair program. What is there to compromise?
Obamacare effectively nationalized 17% of the GDP. Most of the banks, FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC, the automotive industry and AIG are also nationalized. Again, what is there to compromise?
Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. If he was on fire, I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on him.

Scott Richardson of WA 5:11PM April 19, 2010

Bipartisanship is fine, but we have too many people listening to Fox Noise,and worse,believing in this B.S. I can't believe that all Republicans march in lockstep to the same drummer. There's got to be some issues where some moderate Republicans find common ground. Perhaps in foreign policy, definitely with financial reform to reign in the big banks, and maybe even find a way to confirm a Supreme Court Justice replacing John Paul Stevens. I'm a cockyed optimist who believes the glass is half full, nor half empty.

Jack Golding of KS 5:26PM April 09, 2010

Thanks, Ron W. Smith. You make good points and express them very well. (Better that the article author, I might add.)

Muser of NM 6:57PM April 08, 2010

Yes, I agree that Dems should be actively bipartisan at all times--offering trade-offs very openly, seeking cooperation very openly, and, when necessary, yielding very openly. The "openly" part is key, for to anyone who has observed the political scene as long as I have, the rigidity of the Right's conservative "principles" is, these days, such an impediment to trade-offs, cooperation, and yielding to anything at all liberal or progressive. By keeping attempts at bipartisanship open for all to see, Democrats could well end up forcing Right-wingers to change their ways lest they come across as being as rigid as they are. To many of those on the Right, their way is the only correct way, and Dems stand to gain stature every time people see what harm there is in so much of what conservatives insist upon.
"Individual responsibility"--a wonderful ideal if only all folks were, in fact, created equal in all ways--has behind it the Right's suspicion that too many people have no incentive to work hard, to take charge of their lives and be productive, to succeed without "entitlements." Offering fulfillment of "The American Dream" as incentive has become entangled with the reality of "The American Nightmare," sad to say. Jacob Hacker's book The Great Risk Shift, written during the second year of GW Bush's second term as president, could well be the Dems' inspiration as to what to say in openly responding to Republicans' rigidity. A thorough examination of the Right's gradual shifting of every societal safety-net feature to the backs of everyday Americans, it essentially demolishes the Right's reliance on a system that failed in the Middle Ages--all of the wealth in the hands of the few, all of the risk in those of the many. Among the many things you never hear in Rush Limbaugh's daily attacks on the Left, or Sean Hannity's and the rest of the paid-to-rip-the-Left bunch's diatribes, are books like Hacker's. That's what they get (and what their listeners get) for relying on one-dimensional sources like American Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.
Each of the "principles" energizing conservatism has similar possibilities for ammendment or just plain correction. From small government ("Government isn't the answer, it's the problem.") to low taxes ("Taxes strangle growth, deny small businesses their ability to survive"), the principles are so rigid that, in enactment, they expose their own weaknesses. Democrats have a field day ahead of them by OPENLY offering compromises and cooperation only to have the Right unable to accept because of "principles."
The Left has always needed better PR than they've bothered to worry over. Worry time is here now, and better PR is there, with proof at every turn, just for the taking. The Right is hamstrung by clear greed (90% of all personal wealth owned by fewer than 10% of the population?) and a very simple-minded approach to America's greatness. Seize the day, Dems!

Ron W. Smith of UT 5:26PM April 08, 2010

In the last paragraph of this only semi-serious column extolling the virtues of bi-partisanship and suggesting that Democrats reach out to Republicans, we are presented with this:
"Republican indolence, for whatever reason, is not sufficient reason to abandon the progressive pursuit of bipartisanship."
"Republican indolence"?
Indolence translates to laziness, and aside from the fact that Republicans have been anything but lazy (earlier this article accused them of "vitriol"--hardly a derivative of laziness), if this article is supposed to be an olive branch to Republicans, "the progressive pursuit of bipartisanship" is obviously illusional.

Sherlock Holmes of NH 4:19PM April 08, 2010

Yes, we sympathized with Charlie Brown when Lucy pulled away the football the first time, the second time, maybe even the third.
But after that -- how naive and stupid can he be?
The Dems will just look dumb if they keep trying to kick that ball as the Republicans set them up, then cruelly pull it away each time!

time2getreal of OH 3:41PM April 08, 2010

"Why Democrats Should Try Bipartisanship" implies they haven't yet tried it. Is it the Dems fault they didn't get a single Republican vote after including 200 of their amendments? Actually, yes it is their fault. Bush got bipartisanship by strong-arming the Dems, making them wither at the thought of being called anti-American / unpatriotic.
Obama should use the same position of strength by positioning himself against letting the Wall Street gluttons sink the economy again. Don't just scold "fat cats." Insist that if the bankers want their dangerous & lucrative financial instruments in place, the American taxpayer will not be on the hook. Too big to fail is OBVIOUSLY too big to exist. Separate FDIC-insured funds from their gambling orgies with the Volcker rule. Keep repeating that those who want too big to fail are the ones that actually get swocialism in practice if we have to bail their asses out again.
People respect strength! Let Republicans decide if they want to be on our side or continue to be on the side of the banks.

Nick B of WA 2:23AM April 08, 2010

Yeah, we need the middle voters, but giving away everything under the sun to corporations to beg for a Republican vote or two (and not even getting one) is stupid to a fault. The fact is, most of the middle voters would be DELIGHTED with single-payer health care and having the corporations reined tightly in on a host of issues. Most of the middle would be delighted to have high-end taxes raised substantially to fix all this deficit yelling by Republicans and to prevent more excesses of the rich buying government to make themselves richer. So why isn't any of that happening, Mr. Democrat?
Yes, I like Obama---tremendously (compared to the alternative which was McCain/Palin). But let's not take leave of our senses about what really goes on in Congress. Dems need to lead while the sun shines and wishing for "bipartisanship" is not a reason to dodge that duty.

Muser of NM 10:02PM April 07, 2010