The Left Even Admits It: Bipartisanship Is A One-Way Street

I rarely miss an opportunity to bash bipartisanship.  I think it sucks.  Quite frankly, it's just about the worst way to conduct government that I can think of.  After all, if you believe your method of getting things done is the right one, why would you give in to the method that you believe to be wrong?  Don't mistake me, there's plenty of room for compromise; very little would get done otherwise.  The key is to compromise on the little stuff while standing fast on your core principles.

The Left rarely compromises 'in the spirit of bipartisanship' on anything, big or small.  The last major thing I can think of where they compromised on one of their core principles was when Congress almost unanimously gave Bush the authorization to go after Al Qaeda after 9/11.  It was a rare moment of unity in the defense of our nation, but it was only a matter of a few months until they started regretting that decision and backpedaling.  That process lasted all the way through 2006, when Democrat leaders likened U.S. control of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, accused U.S. troops of air-raiding villages and terrorizing civilians, and wailing about the war being hopelessly lost.  Clearly, they regretted their moment of bipartisanship, and were determined to make up for it in spades, and openly.

And yet...the Right is constantly being derided for hesitating to compromise 'in the spirit of bipartisanship'.  Economic stimulus?  If $300 billion is too rich for you, we'll meet you halfway.  Auto bailout?  Come on, if you won't pony up for the $50 billion we wanted, give us at least $15 billion.  Global warming?  Fine, if you won't put up with total environmental restrictions, we'll at least slap some carbon emissions standards on cars to make them more expensive, and let the environmentalist wackos sue you to death over the plight of the polar bear despite the fact that there are five times more polar bears now than in the 1970s.  Illegal immigration?  Oh, come on [you racists!], you can't possibly expect us to even dream of sending the kid back home with his illegal alien mommy; there's no alternative but to give mommy amnesty so they can both stay here.  Abortion?  Okay, fine, if taxpayer funded abortions on demand for any reason at any time during the pregnancy is something you won't can't stomach, then how about we just get rid of the partial-birth abortions and leave everything else alone?  Is that enough to lull you to sleep?

See what I mean?  It's always thrust upon the Right to compromise on core principles, never the Left.  That results in a steady, slow creep to the Left in this country.  There have been moments of Rightward lurching (think Reagan and Gingrich), but they have been sadly few and far between.  What does bipartisanship gain the Right?  A slower, longer-lasting demise.

Death by decapitation and death by a thousand paper cuts both still end up in death, you know?

This idea of bipartisanship is something that people really need to understand.  While it sounds great and noble, it almost never works out equally well for both sides.

I find it particularly illuminating, then, when Democrat leaders in Congress are encouraging Barack Obama to be 'more assertive'.  House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, came right out and admitted what he thought of bipartisanship:

Frank, shrewd and quick-witted, also poked fun at Obama's calls for a "post-partisan" governing environment in Washington. Frank predicted that regulatory legislation aimed at preventing abuses related to subprime mortgages and credit cards stood a much better chance next year, when Democrats have greater majorities in the House and Senate.

"It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process," he said. "My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan.

"Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression," Frank said.

Liberal theology core principle number one: there are two sets of rules; one for us, and one for everyone else.  Here, Frank is admitting that when Republicans are in power, they are supposed to play nice and give the Democrats a hefty bipartisan helping hand, compromising simply for the sake of compromising.  Giving the poor Democrat minority a voice, you know.  Call it legislative mercy, if you will.

On the other hand, when Democrats control the White House and both sides of Congress, Frank doesn't give a flying flip about bipartisanship or compromise with the Republican pests he has to 'deal with', and is quite clear on how the Democrats should conduct themselves.

This is the Left on full display.  This is the mentality that is about to take the driver's seat in our nation.  We can expect no mercy, no bipartisanship, no compromise from them; not on the small stuff, and certainly not on their core principles.  Why should we bother to offer anything but the same?  This is an ideological war for the soul and direction of America, and the radical, liberal Left has just won the most recent round.  We're going to have to do what we can to survive the next couple of years, but I suggest to you that the first step is to get rid of this silly and dangerous notion of bipartisanship.  Now is the time to draw a line in the sand, and make it clear that we will either win back leadership or go down fighting.

There's my two cents.