Bipartisanship

The American people got what they asked for last night.

Well, I should say, just barely over half of the American people got what they asked for. Because, let's be honest, they knew exactly what they were getting with Barack Obama for the next four years, because its what they've been getting the last four years. It's absolutely no secret. Now they get it over the next four years on steroids.

Obama was elected last night by a smaller margin than he was in 2008. In other words, the candidate who four years ago promised Hope and Change and vowed to finally bring the country together was barely re-elected by an even more divided electorate. The people who voted for him four years ago rewarded him for failing to do what he promised in 2008. Weird.

For some reason, though he's done nothing of the sort in his first term, exit polls showed that most Obama voters thought he was the better candidate when it came to working together with the other side. This despite the fact that he is roundly considered to be the most partisan president in decades.

But while I believe Obama's policies are damaging, the bigger problem is this: There really is no such thing as bipartisanship (Heretofore known as BP, 'cause its easier to spell.) It's a myth. It doesn't exist. It really never has, but more on that later.

Suffice it to say, many from both sides of the aisle complain that the other side won't work together. Most voters gripe about how the two sides can't get along. But one could ask the question: When have they ever gotten along? And even a bigger question: Is it even possible to do so?

I suggest it is not. How can two sides, who have fundamental differences in philosophy and theology, come to agreement. I mean, isn't that the reason we each choose a side to begin with? Because we align ourselves with a certain viewpoint -- a platform, if you will -- that is based in a certain set of fundamental beliefs that is usually diametrically opposed to the other side.

Ask yourself this: How are two individuals who have opposing views on, say, abortion, supposed to work together? What's the compromise? "If you promise not to abort every baby you want, I suppose I'll agree to allow you to only partly kill a couple of them." It's laughable to think that people with those opposing views could ever really agree on anything.

And yet, even though we pick a side, that is exactly what we ask of our politicians every time we vote. "Why can't we all just get along?" It's not only unrealistic, it's nearly impossible.

Richard Mourdock, a conservative, was defeated in a Senate race here in Indiana primarily because of a bad choice of words late in the campaign, and I highlighted that issue in a previous post, but even prior to that, one of the primary items about him that was attacked by the democrats was an interview he gave to CNN back in the spring during which he said that one of the things he enjoyed about politics is inflicting his will on others, or some words of that nature. Liberals beat him up pretty good over it. But democrats to the same thing, because he's right.

I don't want to get along with the other side, because I honestly think that their views and ideas are bad for our country. I voted for the individuals I did because I want them to go to Washington and defeat the other side. That's really why everyone votes, even if they're reluctant to admit it. They want their person to further their agenda, whatever that may be. Nobody votes for someone just so they can go to DC and "get along" with everybody else. Never happens.

But Obama, and liberal ideology in general, is even more damaging than that, because their agenda is based on class warfare. Their whole theology is based on pitting everybody against each other. Obama in no way tried to hide that agenda. He was open about his desire to tax the rich, and spend that money on social programs for poorer people. That mentality is coupled with the ideology that liberals are not just the only people who care for the downtrodden, but also the only people who can help those who are less fortunate. Liberalism espouses the idea that everyday life is gloomy and bad for most people, that it is because of rich people, and that the only people who can do anything about it is democrats.

Now, if you subscribe to those ideas, or believe them to be true, that's your prerogative and I won't try to change them. But you have to understand that that class-warfare mentality is precisely what prevents the very thing you accuse the other side of blocking... BP.

BP can never be achieved when one group of people always thinks the other side is out to get them. When you are ingrained to inherently distrust the other side, you will never find common ground with them, because there is no common ground to be had.

The point of this post isn't to try to convince someone that conservatism is better than liberalism, or vice versa, it's to point out that if you align yourself with one side or the other -- and we all do, even those who claim to be "independent" -- than the idea of working together with the other side is not only difficult, its foolish. Why would I vote for someone who I believe is a bad leader, or whose ideas I believe will hurt the country? Moreover, why would I want the people I did vote for trying to make compromises with those same bad ideas?

BP is really unattainable. The country would be a lot better off if everyone would own up to this. Because if they did, I believe it would better keep everyone focused on the issues, and less susceptible to the media bias of who they think just happens to be the hippest guy. If we ignore the myth of BP, we might actually vote based on the issues, and whose ideas are actually better for the country.

I know there will be some who read this who will never subscribe to my assessment, but their reluctance to admit the truth of it won't change the fact that the next time they head to the voting booth, they will align themselves with a side and choose the candidate they think best represents their side, just like I will. And they won't care if their guy is interested in "getting along" with the other side.

This is not meant to suggest that people with different viewpoints or ideas can't get along. We all have friends with whom we have opposing opinions on all sorts of matters. That is a reality of everyday life and I'm not suggesting we can't just "agree to disagree." This is a political issue, and the BP problem has existed from the foundation of this country. Which is precisely why there were opposing political parties from Day 1. The trendy notion, forwarded by an increasingly biased media, is that the inability to get along across the aisle is a relatively new phenomena in politics. Study your history, kiddos. It is not.

In closing -- and selfishly, I might add, in leading you to my next post -- this is a message to both sides of the aisle. I'm in no way trying to suggest that conservatives don't also make the mistake of trying to achieve BP. In fact, these days they often attempt to hearken back to a better day, and align themselves with and invoke the name a President who they believe represented BP like few others, and certainly none since.

They're right that he got things done with the other side. I would suggest he was one of the best at it. But is wasn't BP that got the job done.

I guess you'll have to read on...