By “bipartisan” do you mean working together?

No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? — Xtrix

I think many have admitted it. But the tepid, and the nervous, and the fearful, and the cowardly, seek the company of others. These are conservatives, and Republicans; they are the people who like to self-identify as the opposite of what they are. And they spend vast resources in an effort to convince everyone they are not these things.

But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals.

The old will come, kicking and screaming, until one day they will lay claim to, and take credit for all that is new and good and which was brought to them by liberals. And when they do, they will still be conservatives, and tepid, and nervous, and cowardly, and in search of the company of others.

Exxon, et al, will start their investments in the "new" once liberals prove that new is possible and profitable. But liberals can't wait for them. Liberals are the true risk-taking, rugged individualists of courage and innovation. The must proceed boldly into the future, two steps forward (liberal) one step back (conservative). And on and on and on.

When the conservative whines "What about all the health insurance industry employees and petroleum hydrocarbon industry employees?" they need to be shown the same level of concern they show for everyone else: "Well, there are, of course, going to be winners and losers. We'll provide retraining programs. And there is also unemployment until you can get you feet on the ground." LOL! Buggy whips! The wave of the future!

The only frustrating aspect of my analysis is that we all know the cowards won't lose. Their employees might lose. But they never lose.

The left refuses to kick the opposition when they are down. The right has no such qualms. "Bipartisanship for me, but not for thee." To that extent, the left gets what it deserves. Warren and AOC has bigger balls than most; but they get nowhere because of those vast resources that are spent convincing Trump Puppets that the right is the opposite of what it is. It's part of the plan.

These are conservatives, and Republicans; they are the people who like to self-identify as the opposite of what they are. And they spend vast resources in an effort to convince everyone they are not these things. — James Riley

That's funny, I thought it's the left that does that. Racists who claim to be anti-racist. Fascists who claim to be anti-fascist. Global elitists who claim to be against wealth inequality. People who live in gated communities with private security forces who want to defund the police so that more poor people can get killed.

But on your topic, I believe there is a huge amount of the worst kind of bipartisanship. The disastrous Iraq war was bipartisan. Bush would have been stopped in his tracks if Hillary hadn't given an impassioned thirty minute speech on the Senate floor supporting the invasion of Iraq. That gave cover to all the "centrist" ie corporate Dems to support the war. On questions of foreign policy, wealth inequality, and corporatism, there's not a hare's breath (or a hair's breadth, never know which one it is) between the left and the right in the US. The reason there's so much enmity between the two sides is that they are fighting on the margins about things that don't matter all that much; while the big things are ignored. That's how the global elite and the military/intelligence/media/industrial complex like it.

Remember the Occupy protests? They were all about class. "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out." I read an article a while back analyzing the mentions of class versus race in the news. Shortly after Occupy, race came to the forefront. If they can make people believe it's black versus white, then nobody will notice the profound issues of class underlying many of our problems. That's not an accident, it's by design. Those at the top turn the rest of us against each other.

I well remember the 2006 midterms that were taken as a powerful referendum against Bush's wars. That's the election that brought Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership. The anti-war left, whatever remains of it [nb: On matters of war, I am with the anti-war left], rejoiced. When the first war funding bill of her Speakership came up for a vote, Pelosi ... supported it. That's the day I realized the fixe was in. Well Hillary's speech and vote for the war were another day. But Pelosi's signoff of the Iraq war funding, after she was put in power by a nationwide vote against the war. sealed it.

As George Carlin said: It's all a big club. And you ain't in it. [Warning: F-bombs and truth bombs].

I thought it's the left that does that. — fishfry

Cherry-picking anecdote and redefining won't make the general case. While a fat-cat in a gated community can be Pidgeon-holed as a Democrat if he is one, a Democrat (he/she) can't be Pidgeon-holed as left or liberal. Regardless, if you understand the anarchist, reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, radical, anarchist continuum, you probably wouldn't disagree. Like most people, I get caught up in applying these notions to people instead of ideas (as they really are), but you get the point.

The disastrous Iraq war was bipartisan. Bush would have been stopped in his tracks if Hillary hadn't given an impassioned thirty minute speech on the Senate floor supporting the invasion of Iraq. — fishfry

There's not doubt it was bi-partisan, but I think you fail to understand just how effective it is for the right to say "You don't support the troops" and "You question a POTUS in time of war" and "If you aren't with us you are against us" and "United we Stand" and etc. That is the right's doing. Hillary went along but that proves my point, above. She's a Goldman Sachs Democrat (i.e. she's not left or liberal). The left zealously opposed the war but it was the right that carried the day. It was bi-partisan, but not both left and right. It was right, and that includes Dem-right. And it includes most of the press.

I think we are in agreement on most of what you said, especially with the parties, but my post, to which you object, was no exoneration of the Democrats. It was an excoriation of the right and Republicans. The Republicans forewent their opportunity to separate themselves from the right, from racists, from Trump, from fascists, when they threw Lynn Cheney under the bus. Sure, Romney is a milk-toast Republican, but Cheney is a hard corps conservative, socially and fiscally. Republicans are now Trumpists. Dems, on the other hand, are still a room full of cats.

But forget Rs and Ds: My point was the left needs to lead progress, which it always does, and the right needs to resist, which it always does.

(In the US since 1980) "bipartisan" = shareholder status quo. :mask:

Yeah but die among whom? The public? Political Pundits? I honestly think at this point that it's just a fetish among the political elites.

By “bipartisan” do you mean working together? — DingoJones

Yes.

(In the US since 1980) "bipartisan" = status quo. — 180 Proof

Indeed. I'd argue even prior to 1980. They come together on the 600 billion dollar gift to defense contractors every year, though -- so there's that.

Yeah but die among whom? The public? Political Pundits? I honestly think at this point that it's just a fetish among the political elites at the point. — Saphsin

Political pundits, yes -- but mostly the public. It's hard to say exactly whether the public even wants "bipartisanship" anymore, but if they do then yes, that idea should die.

But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals. — James Riley

In some cases, but in many cases in the last 40 years they've been fairly complicit and have lurched rightward. Only now, with Bernie and AOC and others, have you seen a real push towards trying to raise the standards to those of Mexico, Germany, Australia, etc. I hope they continue to push the Democrats farther.

However, when it comes to climate change it's not even a matter of liberal or conservative -- or shouldn't be. That's in fact been manufactured by the Koch network and other fossil fuel interests. It shouldn't be partisan any more than an asteroid should be. But here we are. So it's less about right/left than about rational and irrational/suicidal. True, those on the right line up more with the latter, but not all of them do -- especially the younger conservatives. They want something done as well.

But because it's been successfully paired with being a "liberal" agenda, a "tree hugging" agenda, the Trump crowd shut their ears. It was only a few years ago Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, etc., were all in favor of climate change mitigation.

The Koch's changed that by associating it with liberals, and since conservatives have had it beaten into their heads for 30 years that liberals are evil, anti-America, and condescending destroyers of "their" culture, climate change became "controversial," part of a left-wing conspiracy. Smart move by the Koch's. The tobacco industry should have done that -- just made it a "liberal" thing to stop smoking. They did to a degree, but the public wasn't quite primed enough yet for it.

That's funny, I thought it's the left that does that. Racists who claim to be anti-racist. Fascists who claim to be anti-fascist. Global elitists who claim to be against wealth inequality. People who live in gated communities with private security forces who want to defund the police so that more poor people can get killed. — fishfry

The old "I'm rubber you're glue" ploy.

there's not a hare's breath (or a hair's breadth, never know which one it is) between the left and the right in the US — fishfry

You're living in 2014 still. That may have been true then (it wasn't, but at least it wasn't completely ridiculous a claim), but it's simply absurd now. There's a very real difference between the left and the right these days. Take the one example I gave: climate change. That alone should tell you a difference.

The reason there's so much enmity between the two sides is that they are fighting on the margins about things that don't matter all that much; while the big things are ignored. That's how the global elite and the military/intelligence/media/industrial complex like it. — fishfry

I wouldn't call climate change or wealth inequality the "margins." One party at least acknowledges both are problems and makes proposals to deal with them -- in renewables, in a wealth tax, in corporate tax hikes, etc. Not close to enough, but something. The other says neither are problems.

If you can't see that difference, you're simply stuck in the past.

Since it seems pretty clear you're talking about this in the context of US politics (the only politics that really matters nowadays apparently) then I'll just focus on that.

Let's face it: sometimes two groups of people simply inhabit different worlds; they can't agree on basic facts nor on common goals. They have nearly opposite visions for the future, grounded on value systems that are light-years apart.

No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? Why continue the pretense of "bipartisanship" and the hope of compromise? — Xtrix

Things haven't always been that way. In the past, both sides were able to agree on an agenda even if it was not their own. The Democrats for instance owned the House and the Senate during the Reagan years, but apparently he was able to pass his agenda in spite of that and votes on the SCOTUS nominees were usually more unanimous.

The only reason why things like the filibuster are an issue now is because you have one side that will absolutely block anything even if it's in line with their policies, and you have another side that is willing to bend over backwards to try to get the other side to agree (I'll leave you to figure out which is which). And the most baffling thing is that it's mostly been among the elected "representatives". When it comes to the actual voters of both parties, they seem to largely agree on most matters, even the concept of transitioning to renewable and green technology if it's presented as an argument about economics. Of course this isn't to say that Americans are largely messed up themselves, but Washington is somehow more broken than that, which is why the government isn't functioning like it should.

So working together is a dogma that needs to die?

Political pundits, yes -- but mostly the public. It's hard to say exactly whether the public even wants "bipartisanship" anymore, but if they do then yes, that idea should die. — Xtrix

To be straightforward this time, I really meant to say that I don't think most people aside from Democratic politicians actually gives a shit. The NYT was basically gushing over Biden's first infrastructure bill by bypassing the Republicans, and now Biden is being tempted to go back to that nonsense again.

wouldn't call climate change or wealth inequality the "margins." One party at least acknowledges both are problems and makes proposals to deal with them — Xtrix

So nice that you picked those two, since they're diametrically opposed and clearly reveal liberal elitist hypocrisy.

Every time you reduce air pollution over a first-word liberal enclave, you condemn another hundred thousand or so third worlders to death. When you make energy more expensive, poor people can't afford it. The very poorest in the world can't get clean water and die of disease. All so wealthy liberals in developed countries can feel good about themselves.

Here's a small example. In Ireland, they're diverting crops to biofuels. Environmentalists like that. Sadly, the policy is starving the poor.

If a policy was enacted that not only failed to achieve its intended results but actually managed to significantly worsen the situation, plunging millions of people into further poverty along the way, it would be considered reckless mismanagement to continue with it.

Yet this is the situation Ireland and the EU finds itself in. Fully aware that European biofuel targets are leading to increased hunger and land grabs in the developing world, European energy ministers, including Pat Rabbitte, on December 12th failed to address this disastrous policy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/european-biofuels-policy-is-feeding-cars-but-starving-people-in-developing-world-1.1633379

Here's a piece on When Environmental Regulation Harms the Poor.

And How green energy hurts the poor


And How a Green New Deal could exploit developing countries

The Green New Deal has changed the conversation among progressive Democrats about how to deal with climate change, from simply managing a disaster to how to take advantage of an existential threat to build a more just society.

However, should this legislative concept be transformed from the hypothetical framework it is today into actual policies, some of the solutions it engenders could make global inequality worse. As a scholar of colonialism, I am concerned that the Green New Deal could exacerbate what scholars like sociologist Doreen Martinez call climate colonialism – the domination of less powerful countries and peoples through initiatives meant to slow the pace of global warming.

And: Green efforts that raise energy costs disproportionately hurt black people and poor people

You can Google around for dozens of similar stories.

The fact is, green energy policies are a disaster for the poor people in developing countries. The liberal elite virtue signal about environmentalism, while their policies contribute to massive increases in economic inequality and literal misery for the poorest people on the planet.

There are many reports and studies along these lines. Make energy more costly and the poor suffer. But the liberal elite feel better about themselves.

So the Democrats aren't "doing something" about the environment. They're doing things to feel better about themselves at the expense of actual people. This is typical of liberals these days. They say they're on the side of good, but they're often not.

A big problem I have with liberals these days is their lack of thoughtfulness in favor of slogans. "Clean up the environment!" "Raise up the poor!" Never thinking for a moment that these two objectives are in conflict; and that what is needed is a balancing of interests. A recognition that when you raise the cost of energy, a lot of people suffer. Actual humans. Liberals seem to like nice-sounding ideas at the expense of living, breathing human beings.

There's a single word that encapsulates these ideas: tradeoffs. Many well-meaning liberals prefer slogans and "I'm good you're bad" thinking to the hard work of grappling with the realities of the world.

You can run the numbers. If you replaced all the gas-guzzlers tomorrow morning, where would you get the electricity to run them? Wind and solar won't scale fast enough and may never scale at all. But "abolish gasoline powered cars" makes for a great slogan. No thoughtfulness behind it.

I could talk about California's energy policies, which have led to widespread power outages every summer; or California's water policies, in which no new reservoirs have been built in 50 years, during which the state's population has doubled. This is exactly how liberal policies are destroying the lives of actual humans, while liberals twist their arms patting themselves on the back and walk around feeling smug. You exemplify the type.

So working together is a dogma that needs to die? — DingoJones

:yawn:

Things haven't always been that way. — Mr Bee

True, but for multiple reasons it's where we are today.

The NYT was basically gushing over Biden's first infrastructure bill by bypassing the Republicans, and now Biden is being tempted to go back to that nonsense again. — Saphsin

"Nonsense"? When McConnell is saying he will spend 100% of his energy trying to stop this administration, there's little alternative except to pass bills through reconciliation. Hardly "nonsense."

True -- we can do nothing whatever. That's an option. A death sentence for the species, but an option.

So nice that you picked those two, since they're diametrically opposed and clearly reveal liberal elitist hypocrisy.

Every time you reduce air pollution over a first-word liberal enclave, you condemn another hundred thousand or so third worlders to death. When you make energy more expensive, poor people can't afford it. The very poorest in the world can't get clean water and die of disease. All so wealthy liberals in developed countries can feel good about themselves.

Here's a small example. In Ireland, they're diverting crops to biofuels. Environmentalists like that. Sadly, the policy is starving the poor. — fishfry

If this is all you choose to see, that's your business. But they're not at all "diametrically opposed," unless of course you select for examples that fit that Fox News/Wall Street Journal narrative.

To repeat: one party acknowledges a problem, another says it's a "hoax." You can't see the difference? That's also your business.

If we want to talk seriously about how to transition, that's a conversation worth having. You can't have it with Republicans.

You can Google around for dozens of similar stories. — fishfry

No kidding. And in your Googling, you can find what climatologists are saying. You can read about how the ice caps are melting, how most of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade, how sea levels are rising, how we're close to passing the 1.5 degree mark, and how they're telling us that we need to move very quickly indeed to avoid setting off tipping points and utter catastrophe.

The fact that these are the examples you choose to highlight in your Googling, avoiding the issue altogether, is revealing.

The fact is, green energy policies are a disaster for the poor people in developing countries. — fishfry

Fossil fuels have been a disaster for poor people as well, as I'm sure you know from your Googling. Pollution and rising temperatures disproportionately effect poorer nations and minorities, as is well documented. Polluted water from chemical runoff is also well documented -- almost always in poorer areas.

Then there's the little matter that if we continue burning fossil fuels, we're toast. That effects poor people as well.

So what's your solution? I haven't heard any great suggestions yet. And I won't hold my breath.

"Clean up the environment!" "Raise up the poor!" Never thinking for a moment that these two objectives are in conflict — fishfry

They're not in conflict, except in your mind. The poor are suffering anyway, under the greed and pollution of the fossil fuel industry. They already struggle to pay their energy bills, already die of cancers at a greater rate, etc. Again to say nothing of the global consequences for everyone.

We don't like the Democrats' proposals? Fine. Then let's make them better. What are your Republican friends offering? Have they made it a priority? No. Do they believe it a problem? No. What do they say instead? "Don't worry about it, it's a liberal hoax."

Yeah, no difference to see there.

You exemplify the type. — fishfry

And you exemplify a typical right-wing climate denier. Fairly easy to spot, and very common.

Again, not surprising from the guy who spouts 9/11 conspiracies, backs state-sponsored terrorism and defends the murder of children.

What you exemplify, in fact, is the thesis of the OP: you're worth leaving behind.

Can't compromise with sheer delusion.

Again worth repeating:

Biden administration: climate change is a priority. (Proposals are arguable.)
Trump administration: climate change is a Chinese hoax.

But there's "no difference" between the parties. :lol:

Isn't bipartisanship something forced upon each party by their circumstances rather than something anyone chose? Each party would prefer to be in complete control. What can you do about it?

What can you do about it? — Judaka

I don't know. What do the Republicans do when they are in charge?

I read something the other day that pointed out how the Rs have the best of both worlds because everything the Ds want requires 60% in the Senate, but the two things that Rs want (tax decreases and one other thing they like, but I forgot what it is; DOD?) only requires 51%. So they basically get whatever their two big wants when they are in charge, or they just mark time on the rest. Whereas the Ds don't get shit.

Another point I've made before: Not all Rs like Trump and not all Rs are afraid of losing their seat by losing their base. However, those that would otherwise be willing to stand up to Trump and their own base are understandably not willing to buck threats of personal violence against themselves or their family. And they won't tell LE for the same reason. Ds don't play that way, threatening their own (Manchin?).

I think Ds should not be afraid of killing the filibuster because Mitch says it may come back to haunt them. If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never.

I see, I understand the context better now. I agree with all you said.

We're talking past each other despite agreement, I meant nonsense as in bipartisanship. The stall in the next infrastructure bill and Biden recontacting Lawrence Summers frustrates me. Hopefully activist pressure sways things in the right way.

https://www.ft.com/content/a7debb77-f361-4c5c-a6c5-f1a92fdc7966?fbclid=IwAR1D6a_qaWFqKuBMvIsEyXYEVCQ-QGIxt8CdcgyYGZD7lcs8cKnqcIsP9r8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-summers-economy-call/2021/06/03/a353a676-c46c-11eb-8c34-f8095f2dc445_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1hWC8fj8Dy8ls-SCWRTKxv2JHsSPAMkxN1J2raSs9A0VVIuwyYoXZMo9g

You're right. Bipartisanship is problem, like any coalition style of governing, because it absolves the politicians and their party of responsibility for their legislation. So in your metaphor about the meteor or climate disaster, if bipartisanship reigns, the politicians and party who legislated wrongly will not receive their comeuppance.

Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics.

:up:

We're talking past each other despite agreement, I meant nonsense as in bipartisanship. — Saphsin

Ah, I must have misread it. Apologies.

Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics. — NOS4A2

Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.

If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never. — James Riley

Yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea of bipartisanship: nothing gets done. It simply hasn't dawned on them that they will lose power by getting next to nothing done, and watering everything down the way Obama did. If they do know that, they simply don't care. Very strange.

Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), Republicans and most Democrats prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.

If the Democrats are smart, they'd end the filibuster immediately. Pressure Manchin as much as possible -- far more than they're doing now. Otherwise they'll lose in 2022, because nothing would have gotten done. Which is exactly what McConnell wants -- dysfunction, obstruction, and nothing passing that's beneficial to the country.

Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.

But as for responsibility for legislation -- yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea. Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), they'd prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.

Think also of the strategy of "political triangulation", taking an opponent's policies as one's own, not for any principled reason but strictly for syphoning votes and retaining power. This strategy tends to hollow out each party, shifting their principles until they are nearly indistinguishable. I fear this approach and bipartisanship results in the uniparty we are now looking at.

"Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy."

I don't really think it has anything to do with unity or division, it's a bit of a strange way of talking about what's going on, a kind of red herring. Of course if there is something that we're all in agreement and united on (and which is correct), or can take steps forward to do so, that's a good thing. Bipartisanship in the Democratic Party sense is more like pretending to be united while actually being screwed. If you can get people to side with your program, okay good. If not, you have to do what you need to do push your program, including beating the other side. But even the whole dynamic of trying to get people to join your side, that's more needed for people organizing on the ground than dealing with politicians in Congress.

I don't really think it has anything to do with unity or division, it's a bit of a strange way of talking about what's going on, a kind of red herring. — Saphsin

I don't see the strangeness. Americans are fairly divided (mostly aligned with political affiliation -- no surprise) about climate change. Whatever you want to call it, it's not unity. But that's exactly what's needed -- far more so than when we "came together" briefly after 9/11. This division was manufactured, though. If the Koch brothers (et al.) had an interest in not going to war with Afghanistan after 9/11, they probably could have convinced half the population that it was a Democratic hoax or something.

In the sentence I wrote right after that I said "Of course if there is something that we're all in agreement and united on (and which is correct), or can take steps forward to do so, that's a good thing."

The talk of Bipartisanship is referring to Congressional/Political Party procedures, that's where all the talk about division and unity is besides the point. I'm not aware of convincing more Republican citizens that climate change is real is referred to as bipartisanship, that's just convincing people out of bad ideas. The less people who believe in shitty things, the better. Even there, I don't see the point in focusing of unity and division as the relevant concepts. I don't really care about uniting with the population, just enough people to not support shitty politicians so my preferred programs go through. Of course if we were all united, that would be easier and better.

I was born not too much after WWII ended, in which war the Russians had partizan warfare. I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum.

I'm not aware of convincing more Republican citizens that climate change is real is referred to as bipartisanship, — Saphsin

It isn’t, but in the context of my example it lead into a broader discussion of completely different realities, and when one should simply give up and move on.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. — Xtrix

I am willing to work with you on this. Which part is causing difficulties in understanding?

Which part is causing difficulties in understanding? — god must be atheist

I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum. — god must be atheist

What does this have to do with anything? What does it even mean? "Bipartisan warfare" is militia who fall on the "non-binary gender spectrum"? What does gender have to to with anything this thread is about? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or are you just a joke?

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Don't get the hate. Some level of bipartisanship and side switching is needed. Otherwise you have policy lurching drastically every time a different side gets a majority.

The problem for the US system is that a 2/3rds majority is needed to move the needle on anything, which in the current climate is too high of a bar.