Whatever happened to bi-partisanship in this country?

Question

Once upon a time, Democrats & Republicans would get together to solve the nation's problems (remember the time right after 9/11 how we all pulled together?)

What happened? Why all the political nastiness? And what if anything can be done to restore bi-partisanship

Answer 1

It existed for a short while after 9/11 - but it soon became a political issue and bi-partisanship went to "hell in a hand basket".The problem stated before 9/11 and became quite intense during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Nowadays, it doesn't matter what good the current administration does, the Democrats are focused on "Bush Bashing". If the GOP loses the presidency in 2008 - there will be a role reversal and those that like President Bush now - will start a "bashing war" on the Democrat winner.

I didn't think our country could get any worse than what in did during the 1960s. Today, I read three separate articles (do a Google search on "9/11 Truth" ) about how our government conspired and was behind the blowing up of the World Trade Center. People will go to any length to believe something negative about this administration. A few months ago, they were foaming at the mouth because of the possibility that Karl Rove might get indited because of the Valaree Plane issue. Where are the apologies now that this has been disproved. You have a very good question - I just don't know if an answer exists.

Answer 2

It is true that there is more cynicism and less interparty cooperation. What is different from before is increased party discipline, whereby members of Congress and senators vote more reliably along party lines and not independently.

That is the British model. And remember what Rousseau said about that:

"The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it."

I think that this is due to a corrupting of the system, of dependence upon political action groups for the funding of politics, and the rise of groups which keep careful score of voting.

It is made possible by a uniquely American tendency of the electorate to vote against interest: to decide votes based on trivial and peripheral issues -- hot button things (abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, guns, fake tax issues, Willie Horton) rather than the "economy, supid" matters like the emptying of the Treasury and the indebtedness of future geneations; the dissaving (drawing down of home equity).

And it is reinforced by myths and lies, pure and simple: that small business and family farms are crippled by esate tax. This myth excite the electorate even though less than 1% of the population depends on farming for income, and virtually no family farmers and very very few family businesses are subject to estate duty.

Inadequate education and downward mobility are the real issues. As the dollar depreciates due to indebtedness and the cost of war, as wealth becomes concentrated in a tiny minority and the middle class shrinks the nonresponsivness of a Congress with a "democratic deficit" will -- or should -- get the blame.

And the cause is a corruption of the democratic system.

"Nastiness" is not limited to the Congress and to politics. It's happened at the same time in the law. And in the 1990s for the firt time the Bars of the various states had to issue "guidelines" for civility among litigator-lawyers. And with the rise of talk radio, a culture of nastiness has risen throughout society. Just have a look at the index of Q/A in English: "liberal" has become an epithet, a name applied to anyone who tolerates support for a single issue that a conservative Y! participant despises.

That doesn't happen in French-language Y! Answers, in which I'm also active.

Answer 3

Whenever a party is in power, they are suddenly big fans of bi-partisanship. They generally believe it just means other people doing what they say. I don't believe it ever truly existed, much like the perfect world of the 50's is a creation of nostalgic television shows.

I will say, though, that the senate is structured for it much more than the house, and not surprisingly that is where we hear the most moderate and reasonable voices (not all, but most).

Answer 4

After Sept 11, 2001, the Democrats were willing to get behind Bush's agenda even if they didn't agree with it. However since then Bush and the Republicans consistently abused that support so now the Democrats are right in turning against Bush and fighting for their own agenda.

Answer 5

You have a very special way of asking a question, and it always makes me think, that I wish I had your understanding on all political issues and just a good all around etude, we could really use more people like your self on this site. I love hearing educated people talk, It really is refreshing. Thank you for helping with my understanding

===Peace And Love ========= Not War And Hate ===

Answer 6

That's just the way politics are....Neither side is going to agree with the other.

Answer 7

there is no balance of power,, since the Republicans vowed to stay together on Iraq,, no matter what,,

Answer 8

It never existed the way you imagine.

Answer 9

OOOOOoooohhh! I agree! C-c-can't we all j-j-just g-get along?????