This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:00 AM

Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?

The reward Joe Lieberman will receive today is justified by the claimed need for more bipartisanship harmony. Is it even possible to have more than we have now?

Read other letters about this article

  • Tuesday, November 18, 2008 07:52 AM

    Not just that

    I'd take the critique even a step further. It's not merely that the whole change=more bipartisanship is a straw man and that congress is already more "bipartisan" than it should have been. Congress, regardless of party affiliation, has been abdicating its constitutional duties over a long period time, culminating in the failures Glenn cites. It's astonishing to read the constitution and then actually observe how the government functions.

    The constitution clearly intends congress to be first among equals. On paper, congress has the power set the entire government agenda, declare war, control the budget, sign treaties, authorize cabinet positions and judgeships. As a matter of constitutional duty, they're SUPPOSED to tell the president what to do, and oppose him when he takes too much initiative on his own. The reality has been working its way toward 180 degrees opposite this for some time, finally arriving there with Bush. We're now in a situation where the only congresspeople who take their constitutional duties seriously, eg., Byrd, are treated as crazy people by their peers.

    Given the alternatives, I think Obama was a pretty good choice for president. He's obviously smart and energetic. He's also less tainted by voting history and log-rolling than anyone else in the race was, so he has a chance to propose and try things without falling prey to the flip-flop game. However, it's important to remember that he spent the last four years advancing to a position of prominence in a fundamentally broken and corrupt organization.

    His diagnosis of what is wrong with the government is a combination of the gridlock trope and the "judgement" of Bush and McCain. It's naive to expect some sort of paradigm shift in governance from him. He's made that abundantly clear from all the decisions so far that he has made directly or influenced. The best we can hope for is that he'll follow through on a reasonable percentage of his better ideas, make some good cabinet appointments, and not start any more wars. Change is just a campaign slogan.

Most Active Letters Threads

740

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
369

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
320

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon