And as Clinton 1992 learned, and Obama 2009 will learn should he becomes President, even when you think you got a deal, you don't because bipartisanship requires both sides operate in good faith. The other side understands that it is while we think at some magic point with the right Democrat or some other magical thinking- this will change. The chief issue by the way with Obama's approach to politics is this magical thinking rather than understanding it as hardnosed focus on interest. The private sector fully understands this when negotiating business deals. It's only the public sector which engages in the fantastical mode of thinking. Cooperation in business is understood for the purpose of achieving one's own end, not as a good in itself. Only in politics are we suppose to believe its a good in itself.

Bipartisanship would only be desirable if you had two parties, operating in good faith, who both wanted what was best for the country as a whole. But I'm not sure we even have one such party, let alone two.

The Democratic Party has kind of a split personality; it has both popular and corporate constituencies. It usually tries to keep both sides happy; oftentimes this is accomplished by supporting token reform that doesn't actually, substantially hurt big business. Every once in a while, they can be forced to do what is right.

But I guarantee you that damn near anything that Democrats and Republicans agree on is not going to be in the interests of the American people. We need to remember that there are anti-progressive forces in both parties. We are not just Democrats fighting Republicans; we are progressives fighting the corporate faction for control of our own party. We have two enemies, not one.

Sometimes, the progressive forces will win the battle within the Democratic Party, but they'll never win over the GOP. So whenever decent legislation is on the agenda, you can be sure that the Republicans will oppose it. Bipartisanship happens when the Democrats sell out.

There are possibly a handful of exceptions, but in general, that's the dynamic.

So very true.

Erm, to specify, that endorsement's pointing at the original post.

"Bipartisanship" or "centrism" is only good or bad insofar as it accomplishes some other goal.

I.e., if the only way to accomplish some worthy goal is to do it in a bipartisan manner with some compromises, and the solution is still desirable, then there you go.

If it is done for its own purposes, and in the context of one power-mad, dishonest, corrupt, and dangerous negotiating partner, then it is bad.

In business we do negotiation all the time. We don't do it because negotiating shows how awesome we are, or how excited we get that we've gone to "the middle" of some deal.

We also try not to ever, ever, ever mistake the goals of any negotiation for the lure of negotiating in and of itself.

In context, what people in power or punditry positions mean by "bipartisanship" or "moderation" or "centrism" are all ways of harming any agenda pushed by sane liberals so that anti-agenda right wingers can be made happy.

Like Kos once said, or close enough, it's not a "compromise" when the other side doesn't give you anything. That's just capitulation.

I get the fact that a lot of people feel burned by various events over the past few years (or however one wants to stretch back, certainly over my lifetime thus far), but I think this assessment is way too dismal. The reality is that our system of governance requires compromise, neither right nor left can effectively govern without some measure of support from the "other side" and the most successful legislative accomplishments - even lately - have some measure of bipartisan agreement.

So no, I disagree with Ezra that there's no way to get agreements from GOP Senators, or that self-interest will up-end any and every possibility for cooperation and comity. What it does mean though - and here, I'm not sure progressives will want to do the work - is deciding what can be compromised, what's flexible and where to draw lines. I don't think Kos, for example, has really ever been an example of willingness to accept that politics is the art of the possible, not just the partisan. I think one of the key differences between solid Obama supporters and solid Clinton supporters (and I'm neither) is on this point - do you see the President as taking a stand and holding firm no matter what, or do you see the President as making essential compromises for a larger goal? I think Clinton is seen, by opponents as too flexible and Obama, by opponents, as seeming naive. And I think, for now, on some issues - including immigration, and probably healthcare - it's hard to see where there's common ground. On others - some economic issues, education, possibly housing, maybe even the war - there probably is some common ground, and we shouldn;t reflexively dismiss the possibility of making headway because compromise somehow suggests weakness. It strikes me that making progress - or the definition of progressivism - is strength. Change is hard. Getting people to understand and support change is work. And sometimes it means accepting incremental or partial change. And I for one, still prefer to stand for the idea that we should be flexible over being fixed and unwilling to move. That, to me, is what it is to be a Republican - standing astride history, yelling "stop."

let me say this in all caps (because this system once again deleted my other post): ALL DEAL MAKING REQUIRES GOOD FAITH.

Without it, there can be no sustainable relationship. Again, by analogy to the private sector, where you find a lack of good faith in deal making is where you find over litigous, ie partisan, players.

This is negotiation 101. Either you get that or you don't.

So... what's your point akaison - do we or don't we have good faith? It strikes me you're saying "we can't trust them, end of story" - if it's something else, by all means, correct the impression, but I'm just not willing to be that categorical. I think Democrats have been burned in some negotiations (I think Republicans can make other, opposite examples) but I don't think it means giving up on negotiating. This "negotiation 101" and "the private sector gets this" stuff is only but so useful - lots of people get burned in bad deals (ask the people who invested in mortgage bonds) that they entered "in good faith." The question your avoiding is risk. At some point, in good faith, you have to take a risk. I think a lot of progressives, these days, are very risk averse, and some of it, I'd agree, is with good reason. I won't, though, give up on the idea that good governance requires compromise, and that, at some point, we will have to take a risk, make a compromise, and make a deal. And I think the question for you is where you're going with this - no deals... or simply "be very very careful about trusting the other side, but at some point, we can and should make a deal?" I have no problem with the latter. I think the former is extreme, and untenable if Democrats expect to govern successfully.

The reality is that our system of governance requires compromise, neither right nor left can effectively govern without some measure of support from the "other side" and the most successful legislative accomplishments - even lately - have some measure of bipartisan agreement.

Our system of governance may require compromise, but the problem is what happens when one party would rather say "fuck our system of governance" than compromise, and when they've got 41 votes in the Senate to make it stick.

Our system of governance does not require compromise in any way.

Bipartisanship shouldn't mean giving the GOP a voice; it should mean bullying them into supporting the Democratic agenda. (Obviously this would only work if the Dems control the presidency and Congress.)

The model: Iraq. Nobody outside of the Bush administration (plus military contractors and freelance neocons) was burning with a desire to invade and occupy Iraq. The Bush administration decided to do it, and they used the bully pulpit of the presidency to pressure Congress into going along.

You need bipartisan support only to the extent that you need more votes than your party affords. Compromise isn't the only way of picking up the extra handful.

The Tax Reform act of 1986 is generally held up as the holy grail of bi-partisanship.
The law certainly closed a ton of loopholes and simplified the system but it also lowered the top bracket by ~45% (50 to 28) while raising the lowest bracket by ~35% (11 to 15).

I can think of few bipartisan laws that specifically helped the poor and working class.
Think about how difficult it has been to get Republicans to vote for expansion of popular programs like EITC and SCHIP.

Bi-partisanship appears to lead to very few things such as: 1)cutting taxes 2)increasing militaryhomeland security spending 3)subsidizing corporations and agri-business.

Linky to review of Showdown at Gucci Gulch
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_5010452/pg_1

Mitch McConnell will probably see his ranks reduced by 4-5 in November, but he will still try to filibuster every Democratic initiative.

I really don't understand the point here. Is the point that the Democrats are so weak as they have to whine the a demoralized GOP is still stronger than a Democratic Party with a heavy majority and a Presidency? Is this really the argument you are making? If so, it's pathetic and represents the exact weakness of character the public already thinks of us. If you don't believe me, look up the polling data- when they are talking values. It's this sort of stuff that everyone else knows but I am the crazy one for mentioning here to your so call brilliant policy wonks.

In business when you can not obtain good faith, you don't continue to try to build it. You find other ways. When was the last time the Democrats tried to build consensus in other ways to force the GOP to do anything? And by the way, there are things that as a party we could do, but don't, because of fear not because it may not work because we don't know if it would work or not. For example, going directly to the America people and making each major symbolic vote-- such as healthcare about endangered republicans. It would require a sustained effort- not just an effort that occurs every so often in a blue moon when we decide we want to lead. This is the difference between proactive and whining. Remain on targe and on message and you use the levers such as the arm twisting that occurs everyday over trivial shit to control your own straying members.

I wonder if the prototypical bipartisan example isn't the budget deals under Bush I (was this 1990). Taxes got raised and a variety of spending restraint provisions was put in place. The Republicans hate it, and continue to hate it to this day. You'd think in retrospect that it was virtually the only provision ever put in place under a Republican to contain the deficit and there'd be some respect for it. I wonder if you could not argue it was these budget deals that stopped bipartisanship in the old sense. It would be interesting to here what the bipartisan crowd thinks about that deal now. I'd suspect there's still be a bitter partisan divide on this issue even among them.