Obama and Bipartisanship
Mark Schmitt has an article in The American Prospect about the unity/bipartisanship/hope language used by Barack Obama that has so many liberals and Democrats nervous:
But let’s take a slightly different angle on the charge that Obama is “naïve” about power and partisanship. Suppose you were as non-naïve about it as I am — but your job wasn’t writing about politics, it was running for president? What should you do? In that case, your responsibility is not merely to describe the situation exactly, but to find a way to subvert it. In other words, perhaps we are being too literal in believing that “hope” and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.
As someone who generally favors Obama over the other Democratic candidates but has been disturbed by his repeated calls for bipartisanship, I found Schmitt’s analysis fairly convincing.
The whole piece is worth a read.
Judging by the number of “01.20.2009″ bumper stickers cropping up, it seems that I am not the only one counting down the days until George W. Bush leaves office. His tenure in the White House has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, and it will take this country years to undo the damage.