tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post2870885669436000835..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: The Bi-Partisanship FallacyDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-14720391685234369412009-10-20T18:17:55.673-04:002009-10-20T18:17:55.673-04:00Anthony, call it "paralysis in government&quo...Anthony, call it "paralysis in government" or call it "bipartisanship", it's the same thing and I wish we had it again.<br /><br />Joel<br /><br />(I also wrote the 11:39 post, forgot to sign.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-41291864932947737212009-10-20T17:33:19.838-04:002009-10-20T17:33:19.838-04:00Anonymous - other than welfare reform, the Clinton...Anonymous - other than welfare reform, the Clinton/Gingrich years were good because of paralysis in government. Both Clinton and Gingrich wanted to do things which would put the budget into deficit; they both wanted some restrictions on free trade; they both had bigger ideas on foreign policy. But they blocked each other instead.<br /><br />Clinton allowed welfare reform because he actually believed in it, and because it took away an effective issue from the Republicans.<br /><br />Though that was also a good example of bipartisanship in another sense: where the partisan principles weren't directly opposed to each other. Democrats wanted to make sure that very poor people got some sort of support. Republicans wanted to break the cycle of multi-generational welfare. These two goals are *not* diametrically opposed, and thus a compromise could be worked out.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389602137217799305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-39311675150396895262009-10-20T12:39:40.184-04:002009-10-20T12:39:40.184-04:00The best government this country ever had was a De...The best government this country ever had was a Democratic president and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. I'm thinking of the Clinton/Gingrich years. Here's the track record:<br /><br />1) Federal budget surplus 1998-2000;<br /><br />2) Welfare reform (i.e. meaningful cuts in the program);<br /><br />3) Consistent promotion of free trade (which contributed substantially to the economic boom of that era);<br /><br />4) No unwinnable wars on the other side of the world.<br /><br />I make this argument in full awareness that both Clinton and Gingrich are creeps, and that they hated eachother and probably still hate eachother today. The fact remains that when these two men had to work together to run the government, they did a surpassingly excellent job. I miss those days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-69627349138247315082009-10-15T11:53:46.780-04:002009-10-15T11:53:46.780-04:00American political terminology seriously wiggs me ...American political terminology seriously wiggs me out. And bipartisan is a truly american word.<br /><br />Up here in canada, we'd need Tri-Partisan or Quad-Partisan depending on the region. What would they need in Israel's Knessed parliament? Like kilo-partisan, or mega-partisan.<br /><br />WWarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053407632823479165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-27378639997919976412009-10-14T15:29:51.227-04:002009-10-14T15:29:51.227-04:00Insightful post.
I think when the average Joe say...Insightful post.<br /><br />I think when the average Joe says "bi-partisan" they mean a bill which appeals to the center, one in which the moderates of both parties come together and pass a bill that "everyone" can tolerate, even if they have to put a clothespin on their nose to do so.<br /><br />That being said, when the average politician says "bi-partisan", it is an empty phrase to make them seem closer to the center than they really are.<br /><br />A truly bi-partisan bill, as your post implies, would require that extremists on both sides come to an agreement. But that can only happen in non-partisan bills. By definition, extremists will only agree with those of their own ideology, otherwise, they'd be centrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com