Bipartisanship and the Status Quo

When Bush won the election in 2000, the consensus was that he should be bipartisan in his approach to governance. He, of course, did the opposite and charged Democrats with being “partisan” whenever they didn’t agree with anything he wanted to do from deregulation and tax cuts to the rich to the war on terror and foreign policy in general. Luckily for him, they generally followed his lead and had little power to do anything when they didn’t. Now Obama has won the election and elements of the media again place the expectation of bipartisanship on his shoulders (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574298582782451614.html). Complaints have come from across the aisle that Obama has abandoned his “post partisan” ideas and is now running roughshod over them with his “ideological” legislation. Yet wasn’t this the point of the election in the first place? It was not to address the “governmental gridlock” as many argued, but to actually change things in the country (at least that’s my reading). The country was fed up with Bush and not happy with Democrats that lacked the votes or resolve to challenge him. The financial crisis, lurking healthcare, retirement and environment crises and sense that government was serving corporate and elite interests and ignoring the rest of us all pointed toward a strong desire for change: a government that actually listened to and served the citizenry of the country.

A more reasoned argument comes from Ed Gilgore today in The New Republic (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/07/23/is-obama-redefining-bipartisanship.aspx). Republicans showed right from the start that they are not really in a bipartisan mood and are in fact partisan girls in a partisan world. Again we see the effectiveness of their strategy, as Obama’s poll numbers drop. We are the sensible ones who want to go slowly. Obama is radical and we need to stop him. But really the Republicans just want to restore the status quo of the past 30 years – small government, limited regulation, lower taxes for the wealthy and the dismantling of social programs. The fact that we remain in a financial crisis, that the healthcare system is in looming doom, that we need to address income and wealth inequalities in this country and that race and gender still matter are beyond the scope of the Republican discourse or ideologically fixed position. The strategy only works when people don’t think or listen and blindly follow the framing the mainstream media offers. One wonders if the resolve exists to actually take on the power elites and make fundamental changes to the country we live in. We shall soon see . . .