Bipartisanship As Method

Glenn Greenwald makes some powerful arguments, as usual, today. In my view, he's 90 percent right but 100 percent wrong. It is true that only the GOP Washington echo chamber truly believes that the stimulus is deeply unpopular, and that Obama is a partisan extremist (the latest Karl Rove lie). The polling is pretty consistent and it suggests that Obama has judged the public mood more shrewdly than his opponents. But I think Glenn misses an important point. A critical part of Obama's strength comes from independents.

They are almost identical to Democrats in their assessment of the president, but they retain some sensible concerns about the Democratic party on economics and fiscal matters. In the coming months and years - which, one increasingly suspects, will carry brutal news on many fronts - Obama needs to keep these independents. By framing the issues in pragmatic non-partisan terms, in showing a willingness to listen to and adapt to some legitimate Republican concerns, Obama is living up to his promise to break with the Bush era. Yesterday's remarkable to-and-fro with the Republicans was a coup de theatre in this respect, as well as informative on some details of the debate. Would I prefer that this ended, and Obama would run a full-fledged ideological and partisan campaign to change America? No. That would be taking the bait.

Being open to genuine ideas from the other side is a form of bipartisanship that was very much a part of the change many of us supported last year. Although it might make some change slower, it can also expose those Republicans whose opposition is purely ideological, careerist or partisan (Jindal, anyone?). And that's a good thing.

Many of us supported Obama over Clinton for a reason - and this refusal to transform everything into a right-left battle was one of them. The sirens for ideology and partisanship should be ignored. That way, rocks and monsters lie.