Misunderstanding the Meaning of Bipartisanship

If "bipartisanship" simply means heading toward the middle ground between the two most polarized points of view on any given issue, then we should absolutely avoid such a ridiculous method of policy making. The exercise of political leadership means finding the best solution, not the middle-of-the-road solution. But this middle-ground approach to policymaking is not really what bipartisanship is supposed to be.

An increasing number of voices from the Left, predicting big electoral gains in November, are heralding "NO MORE BIPARTISANSHIP" as their battle cry. It started with a major thought piece in 2004 from Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris, which was taken up with gusto this year by Slate's editor-at-large Jack Shafer, and has recently been the subject of several pieces by Arianna Huffington. It is no wonder bipartisanship is becoming the object of the Left's derision since it is blamed for our nation's immersion in Iraq, the tax reform measures of 2003, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan – none of which would have passed without bipartisan compromise.

The simple reason why Democrats should not trample on bipartisanship just because they may soon have the power to do so is self-evident: what goes around comes around. If you hated the way President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress completely froze out reasonable voices when they were in power, it seems hypocritical and equally wrong to refuse to consider other points of view when you are in charge. Tables turn, and legislative fortunes change. Remember that.

But beyond political karma, there are even better reasons to pursue bipartisanship. True bipartisanship means leaving ideology at the door, conducting dialogue that is straightforward and open to public view, thoroughly exploring the pros and cons of issues, and after all that, making legislative advances based on the will of the American people. That is a process that Democrats ought to stand behind.

Bipartisanship was never supposed to be about just identifying the middle point between two extremes and obligating legislators to go there. It was supposed to be about accepting the fact that no one's views should be pushed forward without an open and productive discussion of the serious approaches to addressing an issue, being really clear about the possible consequences of each approach and working together – yes, across partisan divisions – to create legislation that both sides believe will be a step forward for the whole of the American people.

Unfortunately, too many of our leaders just don't believe politics can be run this way. Too many so-called leaders think that the only way to get things done is to play the political game the way it's been played for so long. Too many pundits and party advisors see politics as a contest with only winners and losers, instead of an open process for learning and deciding as a nation.

Notice how I'm not advocating for a system of compromises. Compromise implies wheeling and dealing and backroom power brokering. The kind of bipartisanship Democrats ought to believe in entails open public dialogue with leaders and citizens representing a broad set of views and then acting responsibly by taking legislative cues from the will of the American people – not just the constituents who voted for you, party bosses and special interests.

Arianna Huffington is completely wrong to say, using Iraq as the prime example, that "a lot of people are dead because of bipartisanship." The fact is, too many Democrats acquiesced to the White House's call to war in Iraq because they feared they had a weak hand in the political game and could not risk questioning the Bush Administration too loudly after 9-11. Bipartisanship isn't to blame for Iraq, but an atmosphere that squelches open dialogue and full discussion of long term consequences is.

One thing Huffington says that I do agree with, "The road to victory in 2008 [for Democrats] doesn't run through a mythical middle… it runs through the actual mainstream – the place the majority of Americans inhabit."

Many strident liberals are saying that the American public has moved to the left on a host of issues and therefore continuing to aim for the middle point between the extremes of political ideology now misses the target. Our point of view is that it was never a good strategy for policy development to begin with. Leaders should be as pragmatic and independent of rigid ideology as the American public generally is.

If the legislative system is becoming untethered from the moorings of Left-Right ideology, it should not simply drift downwind and be hitched to a Leftward dock to load up on a new delivery of ideological product. Rather, we should set sail for a whole new way of conducting politics, a destination where each issue is addressed as an opportunity to find the best way to fix a problem instead of a potential win or loss for the party. Democrats who taste blood in the water ought to remember that they are crew members scrambling to right the ship, not sharks on the attack.