Bipartisanship bites

I've been thinking for a long time that the problem with bipartisanship is that it's still partisan. Bipartisan implies that both parties stay within a narrow ideological confine and compromise via tradeoffs rather than blending differing views to come up with a new model of action. I would think the ideal would be non-partisanship. Wherein every issue is viewed through a pragmatic, rather than a political lens. Today Avedon points me to this post by Deacon Blues, who articulates my thoughts really well.

Rather than setting this up as Democrats versus Republicans, Obama has a chance to recast the political scene as a battle between those who want the status quo for the elite few versus those who want progress and problem-solving for the many, namely Main Street. Membership in the second group knows no party ID, and both the White House and these GOP governors should not shy away from touting the perils of being held hostage to an extremist do-nothing cabal bent on destroying the village.

I think that nails it. Bipartisan deal making still ends up as a tug of war over party power. Maybe if change was framed as a non-partisan effort, everybody could win. Well, except for movement conservatives of either party.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]