When people see the word "bipartisan," they seem to think that it's synonymous with "apolitical." This is because that's how bipartisan agreements are explained to voters; lawmakers put politics aside, got serious, rolled up their sleeves, and got stuff done. Yay!But the truth is that compromise is an intensely political process. I always say that a compromise is an arrangement in which both sides agree to be equally unhappy, but the truth is that both sides try to make sure the other party is a little more unhappy than they are. They don't join hands and sing "We are the World," they argue, they fight, they maneuver for position. If the final agreement looks good, they try to shoulder each other out of the way when the news cameras start rolling. If it's not so good, they try to push each other to the front and blame someone else. A good argument can be made that a bipartisan approach practically guarantees the sort of one-upmanship that we're told that compromise avoids.
Another thing I always say is that when you meet someone crazy halfway, the result is halfway crazy. As you've probably guessed, I'm not a big fan of bipartisanship or compromise. If we want a demonstration of everything that's wrong with bipartisanship, we can find it in the instructional case of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
