Not in practice, mind you, but as a codeword sop to the masses as justification for defending the status quo.

The end result of bipartisanship is paring down a bill until it changes next to nothing of import.  And then selling it as if it were the greatest thing since the last bucket of lukewarm spit to pass this way.

This is nothing new in politics. The money has always been on the side of the status quo, since change can be costly to one’s bottom line. 

And the status quo has perennially been about "I’ve got mine.  Screw you," now hasn’t it? 

One only need watch the FDR Fala speech (Youtube above) to get that. Or read a little history, you can pretty much pick any era.

What is new? That there is no real voice for change and the little guy capitalizing on this moment in our nation’s history.

And it shows.

Jean Edward Smith has a fantastic op-ed in the NYTimes today talking about FDR, the false sop of bipartisanship and the real value of a little more backbone:

. . .this fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.

Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process. It is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices.

He cites numorous examples of Roosevelt New Deal reforms which were enacted in spite of entrenched interests, and not because they’d been pared down to mere windowdressing to win their support.

Was Glass-Steagall passed in a bi-partisan fashion with entrenched interests on Wall Street given a seat at the negotiating table? Hell no. Social security?  Are you kidding me?!?

Were there membes of Congress consorting with moneyed interests trying to block the bill, much like Max Baucus’ lobbyist-filed anteroom? Undoubtedly.  Although, as Krugman points out, there’s a lot more of that lobbyist payola floating around these days.

But the real difference between then and now?

FDR sold the need for change at the grassroots by making that change actually happen.  And without selling the public’s interest down the river in the process.  Which made his grassroots support all the stronger, and enabled him to fend off opposition by painting them as being against the public, fueling more public support in the process. 

FDR drew his power for change from the people, not just from the people around him inside the Beltway.

Better political leadership in the Democratic party would help.  So would those leaders actually believing in the need for change instead of giving it political lip service and then undercutting it with their actions.

Can the Obama administration still make needed changes? Absolutely.

Will they? Well, that’s the big question, isn’t it?

I grew so rich that I was sent, by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my Party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

I had forgotten how much I love a Gilbert and Sullivan farce until I was reminded of them over the weekend by, of all people, Mickey Edwards, in an otherwise bland column but for the G&S reference and this:

Political theorist Bernard Crick wrote that "politics is how a free people govern themselves." Strong political parties, on the other hand, are how a free people lose that ability. Parties choose which candidates can be on the November ballot, and do so in primaries and conventions that cater to the extremes. Parties reward fealty and discourage independence. In an earlier time, before the Internet, when it was hard to get information about candidates and they had to depend on party support for campaign funds and volunteers, political parties made sense; today, they are passe, black-and-white television, remnants of a time that has passed.

There is a reason elected officials fear sunlight. Especially party leadership.

Heaven forbid the American public actually starts paying attention to all the scurrying going on in the dark nooks and crannies and underneath all those shady rocks.  Things like this:

This report from NPR’s Nina Totenberg contains a fairly remarkable piece of news: So determined to block Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina ever nominated to the Supreme Court, McConnell took the unprecedented step of getting the NRA to do his dirty work.

One top aide to GOP leader McConnell confirmed that McConnell, at a meeting of conservative groups, asked the NRA about scoring the Sotomayor vote as a key vote hostile to gun rights. The aide conceded that in asking the question, McConnell was promoting an unusual step that the NRA then took.

You have to wonder how it is going to play in the Hispanic community around the country that the Republicans were so diametrically opposed to the nomination of Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee with the longest resume in nearly a century, that they called upon the NRA to twist Senators’ arms — even though they knew they didn’t have the votes to stop her nomination.

I smell 2010 electoral kabuki posturing, and not just because weird billboards have been cropping up along highways here in WV offering free bumper stickers that talk lovingly of guns, bibles and lower taxes, but gripe about "illegals."

Fool and his money and all that fundraising rot aside given that its some wingnutty business doing the advertising, it’s awfully early for this sort of posturing, isn’t it?  Especially when it’s bass ackwards and stupid as all get out given the demographics involved. (more…)

Writing a letter via a.drian. Lovely shot.

I’m contemplating a restart of the "You Work For Us Summer Tour."

Last time, the issue was FISA.  And all of us were seriously, seriously pissed.  And there was a unified front on pushing better government and accountability from everyone all at once.

This time?  Health care is on the plate in a big way in the national discussion prior to the August recess. 

What I sense is a unified feeling of disgust and dismay from everyone.  But not a central purpose and demand for action in terms of what ought to be done legislatively.

So, here’s my thought:  LizH had a fantastic idea about meeting face to face with legislators and with staffers to tell individual stories about health care issues we’ve all had:

Do you think we could arrange a nationwide day/week to stand in line at your representative’s office? Everybody come armed with a health story and a demand that a public option be available to every citizen.

I guess I’d like to ruin their vacation, as so many lives have been ruined from the shameful lack of health care coverage in this country. I want what they have – health care.

She provided a link to something that NAMI has done on that in the past as an example of what could be done. While I’d love to work on a single day of action, I don’t think it is practical given that the right wing has big finances behind shoving "socialism" down the national throat as a rebuttal point for the rest of the summer.

Here’s the thing: we are the last line of defense on health care. If we want something better, it is up to all of us to push for it. And push hard.

We’ don’t have Dick Armey’s PAC money financing us, all we have is our own will to make things better. But, honestly? I’d match our determination and gumption against Freedomworks slick bullshit maneuvers any day if we all got off our asses and did something together.

The big question is? Will we.

It is awfully easy to sit on the sidelines and grouse about things not being perfect. It’s harder to get up and do something about them. And what I’m asking — before I put the rest of my summer’s effort into this — is: are you willing to make the effort for better health care? (more…)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the self-important stylings Blue Dog Mike Ross of Arkansas, and what he’s helped to do to the current health care debate:MIKE ROSS: …You know, we have been trying to get healthcare reform done since Harry Truman, and our objective is to get healthcare reform done this year; that was the President’s original objective.

Digby points to a Catherine Rampel piece at NYTimes. In it, Rampel underscores a universal political truth: According to two recent polls from The New York Times/CBS News and The Wall Street Journal/NBC News, Americans appear very worried about controlling the federal deficit….

Oh, good lord. Save me from this idiocy and self-inflicted wound licking from the bipartisan zombie crew.

First, via Joe Sudbay’s rapier sharp analysis, we have this example of gen-u-whine genius from Sen. Max Baucus:Now, if I was a Republican, I’d be laughing my ass off right now. Max Baucus is basically writing the t.v.

All the smarmy Republican legal smear tactics?  Say it straight out: it’s all about the right-wing moolah.

Jane said it all here, but I’m risking a repeat:

Boy, does this sound familiar:

While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats….

Someone at the WaPo editorial page had their Wheaties: Let’s put aside, for the moment, the fact that the Justice Department under President Bush was perhaps the most politicized in a generation — and that among the most warped sections of the Bush Justice Department was the OLC….”