Hyperpartisans Holding Us Hostage

There is now a gap between the politically active and the politically dependent - that is, between obsessives who have a stake in the nature of political debate and those ordinary people who have a stake in the outcome of political debate. From cable television to the Internet, we are now living with a political class which has a financial and cultural interest in conflict rather than in governing. - Jon Meacham, Washington Post

This is the red hot center of what's going on in our modern political environment. (Can anyone think of a precedent for this in history? I can't. And all the ones that are close ended *exceedingly badly*...)

The quote was from a Washington Post article about how the current environment is eating Obama alive. The big takeaway is that for the first time in history there is a group of powerful, well-funded, highly-sophisticated people who have a deep self-interest in perpetuating the fight rather than solving actual problems. Republicans stonewalled Obama and were rewarded with money and power, and meanwhile huge issues got left insufficiently addressed. Meaningless votes routinely take place to provide candidates with fodder for the next election. There's no incentive to compromise for either side.

Many of my more extreme political friends would rather have no reform than imperfect reform. If you asked them what they would do if they had to choose between fighting and compromising, most of them would fight - even if that means that people suffer while the battle rages. They laud those who Never Give In. But that's not how it works. The best of our statesmen - even those passionately committed to one view or another (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) - routinely worked with their ideological counterparts. They knew how. Lincoln did it. Both Roosevelts did it. Lyndon Johnson did it.

And I think Obama wants to do it. Many see in Obama what they want to see, but *my* belief is that he sincerely wants to govern. His personal beliefs may be progressive, but I suspect he'd be okay with a partway solution if it represented a move in a good direction. His position on last week's election was "Yes we can, but not all at once." When solving interpersonal problems, my first-grade daughter's teachers say: 'does this move us closer to a solution or farther away'? Children want the world to be perfect overnight, and will throw a tantrum if they don't get their way. Many adults realize that things are messy, take time, and very seldom end up the way they would prefer. But you try to move things forward anyway.

Many people believe that civility means giving in to the other side. But the point isn't to compromise or change your beliefs, it's to put your righteous anger in the closet and treat your opponent with respect in order to get something accomplished. Refusing to talk to the people you loathe (or calling them names) is not how democracy works. It may make you feel better about yourself, and get applause from your like-minded fellows, but it doesn't get laws passed.

I really want to ask my partisan friends to think about this: one side or the other won't win this thing outright, not any time soon. The guy you hate is not going to just give up and go away. Do the rest of us just have to wait for you all to play your silly game until we get ANY kind of health care reform, immigration reform, a recovery, tax reform, energy policy, environmental policy ... and on and on?

Fight the good fight. Don't give up your principles and do your level best to persuade us all that you've been 100% right all along and we should all agree with you. But for god's sake don't hold the country hostage until you succeed.