We have the worst media in the world. They almost never tell you what’s really going on, especially in politics. They have been pushing this idea that bipartisanship is a great thing to be sought after. Of course, they are aided and abetted by President Obama and the Democratic Party. But it’s not their job to parrot people in power. The reality is so-called bipartisanship is the worst possible thing for the American people.
Why do I say that? Is it because I’m a radical who believes the best solutions are always found at the extremes of the political spectrum? Nothing could be further from the truth; I think generally speaking you find clowns and madmen at the end of a political spectrum (see Glenn Beck).
And I’m sure there was a time in this country when Democrats and Republicans came together in moderate positions. That when they compromised it was a true compromise of ideology that led to some balance that helped the country. We are not in those times.
Now, when politicians compromise with each other in the spirit of so-called bipartisanship what they’re really saying is, "You go from the right, I’ll go from the left and I’ll meet you at K Street." These compromises are stagecraft used to disguise capitulation to corporate lobbyists with the veneer of moderation.
What happened when Democrats compromised with Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee and conservatives in their own caucus on health care? They got rid of the public option. And Medicare buy-in. And drug re-importation. And the ability to negotiate with the drug companies. Every one of these measures was supported by progressives and every one of them would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget and hence should have been supported by the conservatives.
Conservatives would attack health care as adding to the deficit and then fight like hell to make sure it included no measures to reduce the deficit. That’s partly because they wanted to make the bill worse, so they could fight against it later if it passed. But it was mainly because their corporate sponsors told them to take out those provisions.
Every one of these so-called compromises wound up helping corporate America. There was never a compromise that was against corporate interests and there never will be. You can use this as a measuring stick from now on. Whenever there is a bipartisan agreement in Congress from now on, look to see who benefits from it – I guarantee you that ninety-nine out of one hundred times it will be corporate America.
And the Democrats are perfectly happy to do this because they take the same, if not more, amount of money from those same corporate lobbyists. Except they have the meddlesome problem of pretending to be for the people. Republicans are not burdened with this; everyone expects them to help the rich and the powerful. But the Democrats need cover, and they have the perfect excuse in the mantle of bipartisanship. What could they do, the Republicans made them do it! And aren’t they so reasonable for compromising?
Notice the Republicans never pushed for bipartisanship when they were in office. They didn’t need the cover. Yet when the Democrats are in office there is an unending quest for bipartisanship. Why? Do you think it’s just because the Democrats are more reasonable? No, they need the political cover more when they give the lobbyists what they want.
If the politicians actually split the difference between progressive and conservative positions, I might disagree from time to time, but I could live with it. Abortion is a great example. Although I hate the Stupak Amendment attached to the health care bill in the House, I think it was the least objectionable part of the process for me. Why?
Because that appeared to be a real ideological compromise. There were no corporate interests involved. I’m completely pro-choice but I understand that there are many people in this country who are pro-life. And if you don’t like that they won on that issue, then vote the other way. But as long as they are acting in good faith, there is nothing wrong with ideological differences and political compromise.
The problem is selling out to corporate America in the guise of settling political differences. And here it comes again in financial reform. Here is the statement that Senator Dodd’s office just put out:
"Chris is retiring so he wants to end his career with an important regulatory reform bill and he wants to make the bill bipartisan. He is not going to risk bipartisan support to make the White House happy."
Translation:
"Chris is retiring and would like to get a high paying job on K Street, and hence, he will pretend to be bipartisan and reach convenient compromises with the Republicans in his committee to gut this bill and protect the corporate interests he will soon be serving."
And guess what, it turns out that compromises that Sen. Dodd (D) and Sen. Shelby (R) have been working on wind up reducing consumer protection, allowing the banks to take more risks and make more money at taxpayer expense. Who could have seen that coming? I guess that’s another lucky break for corporate America! How can a small group of people keep getting so lucky?
Political bipartisanship is a fraud. It’s meant to cover up bipartisan crime. The media and the Democrats aren’t telling you the truth. The only thing they’re compromising away is your interests. The people who sell out the most are the ones that are revered the most as centrists and moderates. It’s all a sham. They’re not centrists, they’re corporatists. Don’t believe the hype. Bipartisanship doesn’t help you, it helps the lobbyists.



53 Comments







Thanks Cenk, indeed it does.
Cenk, you’ve been consistently driving the nail home lately. Love the podcast.
Yes. The overwhelming majority of democrats, unwilling to pass meaningful health care reform, highlights the charade. Both parties serve corporate America so they create this fake “partisan bickering.” The media follows the fake battle in place of real policy discussions, and keeps telling us that we are tired of partisan bickering. Neither party can allow the real for-profit health care issues explored, or popular sentiment would force them to vote against their corporate masters.
Well said.
Yep, and Cenk,
Notice how the Coakley defeat in Mass was used as just another excuse (by the Media and pols) to push Democrats even further to the Center (corporatism) to appease all those angry Independents/Centrists.
A huge part of Independents today actually lean Left of Dems (like yours truly).
Hah! It doesn’t matter whether the Left protests (stays at home, votes third party) — it will always be sure to get spun in a way where Dems still move further towards corporatist positions.
Hey Cenk have you noticed how no one even talks about Iraq in the MSM now. No mention of how many Iraqi people have died, been injured or displaced in our media. The Bush administration was successful at undermining the Lancet reports about the deaths in Iraq. Swept under our nations bloody fucking war rug. The Obama administration and our media is happy to keep those numbers of dead and injured under that rug for as long as they can.
Not even a mention of U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq any more, many of them permanently.
I keep thinking about how people in 25 years or so will say about Americans. What the fuck were they doing when their government created an environment for so many deaths and injuries to take place. What were they doing when Blackwater was taking innocents out in Iraq. I keep wondering how differnent are we than those who sat around as millions were being slaughtered by the Hitler killing machine. How different are we?
Yes our media continues to be complicit by not showing the American people what our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq has done
i feel the same way.
Hey Demo Party: Bipartisan this…
Here I must disagree. The “political spectrum” is a fictional, ideological contrivance of those who wish to position themselves at the “center” of this fictional “spectrum,” but who at any rate may believe in rather harmful things. The “center” of the “political spectrum,” for instance, did until late in 1967 believe that the escalation of the war in Vietnam was the cause of justice, truth, and goodness, just as today the “center” of the “political spectrum” believes in energy policies which will rather severely exacerbate abrupt climate change.
The word “radical” comes from the Latin word meaning “root,” meaning that “radicals” tend to get at the root causes of things in order to advocate “radical” change. We should be proud to call ourselves “radical,” as being “radical” is a mark of intelligence, that if you’re “radical” you’re smart enough to identify root causes of social problems and to want to change them.
Spot on analysis; thanks v. much. Relying on the so-called “mainstream” media for what passes as “news” is an exercise in futility. Not only is the corporate owned media hand-in-glove with politicians in the charade that you aptly and clearly describe, but they make no attempt to really report on much of anything any more… including as one prior post says: about Iraq, for ex.
I see that a movie that focuses on the Iraq war (or aspects of it) called “The Hurt Locker” has been nominated for an Oscar today. I hear it’s a good movie & kudos to all involved in the film. But I fear that’s about as close as we’re going to get to the purported “trad/med” “reporting” about the Iraq war. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
Probably like most here at FDL, I thank the gawds daily for the Internet because otherwise… we’d know nothing. And I fear with the recent Supreme Court decision allowing complete corp control of gov’t, we may soon see our access to information being curtailed or denied. May I live to be totally wrong about that.
“Probably like most here at FDL, I thank the gawds daily for the Internet because otherwise… we’d know nothing. And I fear with the recent Supreme Court decision allowing complete corp control of gov’t, we may soon see our access to information being curtailed or denied.”
___
Yep. I share your concern.
Yes. Exactly.
Bipartisan was the tune Reagan played when he got some Democrats to vote for parts of his agenda. Ever since then it has always meant the same thing. A Democrat voting for bills that a Republican wants to see passed.
When an R uses the word it means they won, when a D does it means they conceded.
Here’s another reason you can’t go bipart. DailyKos poll of self-identified Rs. They are just as nuts as you thought they were.
Kos’ new book is “American Taliban” … holy shit that will stir things up *quite* a bit n’est-ce pas?
How about the GOP the Media and the Dems who are all to the Right of the majority of Americans on the issues the majority of Americans thinks is important try being bipartisan with us for a change?
Forget it. They’re already well-compensated by the corporatocracy; they don’t have to play bipartisan.
All you really said was follow the MONEY! But very well said. Dodd is betraying all Citizens at the end of his career. All he pleading for the people was nothing but smoke and mirrors so he can Cash in$$$$
We must have lobbing reform, take away Corporate “Person Hood” and eliminate any political money they can donate or tax it at 90%!
“These compromises are stagecraft used to disguise capitulation to corporate lobbyists with the veneer of moderation.”
Best sentence of the day, bar none!
Jim Fallows has a post up on his blog at The Atlantic in which he extensively quotes the argument of a long-time “insider” (presumably Democratic) about why bipartisanship can’t work in today’s DC environment. He asserts that for one of the few times in American history the stars have aligned such that the minority party can exert the same level of discipline on its members that is routine in a parliamentary system, whereas the majority Democrats cannot.
Snort. Yeah, we noticed.
Sounds too sophisticated by a mile and a half.
Bipartisanship is a distinctly bad idea when one of the parties is fascist.
“Bipartisanship is a distinctly bad idea when
oneboth of the partiesisare fascist.There, fixed it for you.
Exactly! You get Fascism heavy ( Goper ver.) and Fascism lite (Dinocrat ver.) In either event you get Fascism /Corporatism. The vote in Congress in 2008 coming to the rescue of Wall st. showed the ruling party clearly at the center of both parties and both leaderships. Candidate Obama and Candidate McCain both voted for the rescue. Both Corp. candidates bought and paid for. So it still is today and so it shall be forever, unless we change the game.
While I agree with the assertion of “bipartisan” taint with respect to the pols’ support of oligarchic corporatism, I hold particular scorn for the ascendant Repu’ublicist disloyalty to the nation, i.e., their fundamental, increasingly intractable tactical mantra of “government doesn’t work.” There are “zero degrees of freedom” in this argument when you are doing everything you can to make sure it doesn’t work via unrelenting obstructionism. Obstructionism wholly in the service of a return to power — power you have no intention of wielding for the public good as set forth in the [1] Preamble “…form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” and [2] Article I, Section 8 “…provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”
This transparently phony, seditious crap makes me crazy.
They would argue that the end (their return to power) justifies the means. Or, more likely, just thumb their nose at you and call you a sore loser.
OT Obama is going to debate Senate Dems
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/obama-will-do-another-qa_n_446427.html
Thanks for that link. That’s awesome news! Let’s hope the Dems don’t just lob him softballs to knock out of the park.
yeah right, did you miss that last sentence:
The Huffington Post asked some Democratic House lawmakers whether they would want to have an opportunity to question Obama, and the consensus was that they would hesitate to press him very hard in public, out of a sense of party loyalty.
Party before country, eh? Well finally they came out and said it.
Time to get out of the battered spouse mindset already! “I know my love can change him…” *gag*
Look at this wimpy, whiney D chief-of-staff in unconditional surrender.
Let’s not forget Solomon’s bipartisan solution to the two mothers’ claims: we’ll just cut the baby in half. And that’s what most bipartisan “solutions” look like.
The baby, in you analogy, are the citizens of the U.S.
“…they need the political cover more when they give the lobbyists what they want.” It’s the first time this unending push on the part of the Democrats has made sense to me. Excellent.
Welcome to our world. Caveat: it’s not a nice world.
This is so untrue. If you think the media’s coverage of politics is bad, you should see how they treat economics. Far, far worse.
Absolutely. We have two parties who play act at opposing each other while all the while both push a corporatist agenda whose sole and only goal is to loot the country dry.
I think generally speaking you find clowns and madmen at the end of a political spectrum (see Glenn Beck).
This is bullshit, the same kind of bull I expect from the corporate media. The right has all sorts of clowns (see Glenn Beck and a hundred others). The left does not. No doubt it has people you disagree with. But “clowns and madmen”? Who, exactly? Howard Zinn? Cindy Sheehan? Dennis Kucinich? There is noone you can name on the left who remotely compares to those on the right.
Agreed.
I couldn’t edit this post for the time being, so I thought I’d post a correction here.
Correction: Senator Dodd’s office reached out to me to say that the Financial Times quote was not an official statement from his office. That is true. I should have attributed it to a staffer quoted by the Financial Times. Here is the statement from Kirstin Brost, the Communications Director in Dodd’s office:
“Dodd strongly supports the Volcker rule. I don’t know who Deal Reporter spoke to, but I speak for Chairman Dodd and Dodd is going to fight for the strongest bill he can get. He is giving the Volcker proposal careful consideration. We are having two major hearings this week with Chairman Volker and the Treasury Department to do just that.”
I don’t want people to misunderstand my correction. The only thing being corrected is the source of the quote. I do not believe the official statement from Dodd’s office. Every report I have read indicates that they are not going to push strongly for the Volcker Rule. I hope they prove all those reports wrong, but I highly doubt it.
One more thing that should be noted, I had very high praise for the initial reform package that Senator Dodd introduced a couple of months ago. I explained on our show how it was stronger than the House or White House version and that it was a real reform package. Furthermore, I supported Chris Dodd in the 2008 presidential primaries over Barack Obama. So, I have absolutely nothing against Senator Dodd or his original proposal for reform. What I have a problem with is selling out that proposal to get a so-called bipartisan deal with the Republicans and to make corporate lobbyists happy, and in the process, making financial reform much, much weaker.
I will be the first one to give Senator Dodd tremendous credit if he does not do this and sticks to his original strong reform proposal. We’ll be watching to see who was right after all.
I supported Dodd in the FISA fight. Even made a small contribution. By now, almost all my political idols have feet of clay.
Yes, Dodd has turned into quite the financial industry whore. The Volcker rule is being oversold though. It really wouldn’t stop a lot of the proprietary trading that goes on. Trading with customers would still be allowed and financial firms could use the shadow banking system, or even some of their ongoing governmental credit lines I would think, to finance such trades.
You might think that the new Party of NO that has replaced the GOP would put an end to “meet me at K Street.” Since there are no Republican votes on offer for anything (not even policies that Republicans have advocated for years), then Democrats can either go progressive or else take the heat all by themselves for going corporatist.
You might think. But we’re still getting corporatist legislation out of the sausage factory.
“How bipartisanship in pursuit of a corporate agenda hurts the country.”
Because bipartisanship in pursuit of an audit of the Fed, for example, does not hurt the country.
The means is not the real problem, the corporate-serving ends are. And when the pursuit of those ends is intentionally obscured by a bad faith resort to the claimed need for a particular means (“bipartisanship”), which is already inherent in the existing structure of the Congress itself, including its committees of jurisdiction, if actually used, the pursuit of those hidden ends is all the more contemptible and despicable – which is the sentiment rightly underlying Cenk’s post.
People running the two Parties in Congress fancy themselves corporate CEOs involved in merger talks with a competing corporation. Thus they structure extra-Congressional “negotiating” processes between Party leaders (with the White House now running the Democratic side of the talks) where the two Parties have equal input, so that the power balance of the elected (Democratic-majority) incumbents in Congress is overthrown, along with Democratic-majority committee jurisdiction and public crafting of legislation. The “Gang of Six” was just such an extra-Congressional “negotiation.” [You'll notice that this is the sort of "bipartisanship" John McCain and others like to call for - between their Party and the President for the Democratic Party - 50/50, no inconvenient Democratic-majority committees need apply...]
And yet reporters covering Washington, like those at Politico – indifferent or even hostile to democratic process – persist today in calling the bastardized Gang of Six process “months of debate in the Senate Finance Committee” – thereby completely dismissing and disregarding the Democratic majority of the actual Finance Committee (no 3 of one Party, 3 of another, in sight), its rules for public process and fair participation by all members, and its rightful jurisdiction over the matter that Senator Baucus as Chairman – apparently at the behest of President Obama (what was it ‘montanamaven’ has said Baucus was telling Montana Democrats about this?) and Majority Leader Reid – hijacked from the actual Finance Committee, without any visible consequence.
That’s how you have a Congress in Name Only, and that’s all we’ll continue to have so long as the Party members in Congress continue to let their legislative roles be bypassed by Party operatives, and continue to voluntarily cede the power their constituents gave them, and their own representative voice and will, to elected and unelected Party operatives, in exchange for campaign cash crawled for at the feet of Corporate America during events like this one in Miami Beach last weekend.
I’m not in the least afraid of “bipartisanship” or “bipartisan” debate conducted inside the democratic structures of Congress, given its current Democratic majorities. I am wary of the ends that members of both corrupt Parties may unite to pursue inside those structures – like the further Iran sanctions adopted by unanimous consent agreement last week in the Senate. But I am completely opposed to backroom 50/50 “negotiations” between Parties that are then imposed, top-down, on the rest of Congress, without the slightest public pushback from our purported representatives in Congress.
If we want the Democratic-majority playing field in Congress that the voters created in 2008 – we should be insisting that the committees and floors of Congress be where the work gets done on legislative policy. And if and when that work is mostly conducted again in public view – we will then be able to accurately assess the efforts and work product of our representatives in committee and on the floor, and act accordingly to try to bring consequences to bear on those who should be held to account for failing to honorably represent their constituents.
Thanks, powwow. I didn’t know about the “balance” thing. I’ll find a link. That’s a very important point about the committees being representative of the elected proportion. wow.
Sorry. Dodd is another fraud. And apparently the Volcker material is more kabuki. It’s worse and worse every day.
I like your posts, Cenk!
Thanks Cenk. I’d like to comment on your opening line: “We have the worst media in world.” Roger Ailes in a meet the press segment openly confessed to Arrianna Huffington that he put ratings above content at Fox. Fox is worst of our media. Britain has the BBC, Canada the CBC, Australia the ABC, New Zealand the NZBC. These stations often give the most balanced news coverage in their countries because while they are owned by the government they operate independently. Often both conservative and liberal politicians get upset with their coverage and you can’t get more equitable than that. I firmly believe the reason their content is of such high quality is that they can operate independently of corporate and big business sponsorship. We should seriously consider more increased government funding for our PBS and remove all corporate sponsorship.
“Bipartisanship” is just so much hand-waving. The only thing that should matter is whether you have enough votes to pass something. If you do, pass it. If you don’t, hold the vote anyway and get those who oppose your bill on record as being against it. For the President of leaders of Congress to say they can’t or won’t pass a bill unless they can get “bipartisan” support is just an excuse. The President might as well say he can’t sign a bill unless he has a pen with special magical ink.
Bipartisanship is a joke.
We need a civil war to beat out those on the right, and remove them from seats of power.
The only way to ever win is just like the Republicans keep telling us. That we must win the wars at all cost.
So I say give them what they want and preach. A real fighting war where they can’t win with their mouths, and their yellow streak shows on their dead rotting corpses.
To strong hey. Well that’s the only way to ever shut up and beat back the Republicans. We should switch party symbols because the Republicans are more like donkeys, or asses, than elephants.
The republicans are alot like an incurable cancer on this Nation, and as long as it’s not treated the way it should be it will only get worse and eventually kill You.
Uncle, the funni one, who waged some 180 invasions/skirmishes; allowed slavery;barred the right to health care,to be informed-educated; nuked japan, etcetc., has two agents to represent him???
So we have bipartisan aggressions against iraq and afpak. Oh, horrors, not on some cosmetic changes. Suddenly darlng one party splits in two. And just as suddenly, but expectably to any ice-cold observer, the two wings of one goose become one party when it comes acquiring real estate! Go figure!tnx
I hope you get to say this as a guest on CNN & MSNBC. So true and so dam sad.
Cenk,
You might find it amusing that in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Mr. Smith’s mentor and secretly corrupt senior senator, Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains), looks a hell-uv-alot like Chris Dodd. I watched it the other night for laughs and I could not get this image out of my head.
Politicians that say they strive for bipartisan solutions are really just telling the corporations that thier vote is for sale.
It’s very much a bipartisan disease.