There has been a lot of discussion recently about the urgent need to stop the "partisan bickering" in Washington, with elder statesmen gathering in groups to demand bipartisan cabinets and pundits wringing their hankies about government not "getting anything done."

Glenn Greenwald wrote about the actual record of bipartisanship earlier this week and set forth a long list of recent legislative initiatives in which the Republicans voted as a bloc and Democrats crossed the aisle to pass legislation. It's quite impressive. He concludes: [1]

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means...Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

When the Republicans won in 2004, conservative movement leader Grover Norquist made a famous statement: [2]

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

I could be wrong, but I don't recall any outcry about a lack of comity or civility in Washington over comments like that. People chuckled knowingly and explained "elections have consequences." Only now that Republicans are in the minority and may suffer an epic loss at the polls next fall do we see nearly hysterical op-eds imploring politicians to compromise for the good of the nation.

For seven years, when Democrats were in the minority, there was nary a peep from the "punditocracy" about bipartisanship, despite strict party line votes specifically designed so that Democrats would not cross over (on the theory that the Republican base preferred legislation that featured no compromises with the enemy). Yet since the Democrats won the Congress in 2006, there has been a nonstop keening from the political establishment about how the Congress needs to stop the partisan bickering — even as it is still only the Republicans who vote as a bloc on bill after bill and filibuster at twice the rate of any congressional minority in U.S. history. These critics never name names. And lately, they've been demanding that a Democratic president must be willing to name Republicans to his or her cabinet, implying that Republicans are the ones who've been shut out of the process and must be included for the sake of bipartisan comity.

It's possible that the pundits and elder statesmen simply accept that Republicans can't be asked to compromise. After all, everyone knows that conservatism is defined by its philosophy of principles and integrity (except for all the corruption and hypocrisy, of course.). Therefore, in order that a Democratic majority "gets things done," progressives must be sensitive to that special need, even to the extent that they not complain about obstructionism or pass legislation that the president might veto. That causes unpleasant discord and dissension which can only be cured by Democrats agreeing to share power with the minority and compromise on their agenda.

This new obsession about bipartisanship, which blames both parties equally for the sins of one, comes at the moment of progressive ascension. That is not an accident. Conservatism is still considered the default philosophy of "real Americans" in the political establishment. The blame for any Republican electoral losses are placed at the feet of George W. Bush, not conservatism itself, and this hand wringing about the need for bipartisanship is a way for the protectors of the status quo to keep progressivism in check after a decade of failed conservative governance.

The fact is that conservatives understand how to advance their agenda, whether in the majority or in the minority, always blaming progressives or liberalism for what has gone wrong. The political and media establishments help them do it with "heads I win, tails you lose" calls for bipartisanship the minute the Republicans become a minority. That's why progressives need to make their arguments about conservatism explicitly so that they can begin to expose this game for what it is and make people understand that conservatism, not a lack of "comity" or "bipartisan cooperation" is at fault for the mess this country is in today. If they don't, if history is any guide, a new Democratic president will be under tremendous pressure to not only govern in bipartisan fashion but, perhaps more importantly, put the past behind him or her in order to "bind the nation's wounds" with a call for unity and cooperation which will naturally exclude "looking backward."

And in 20 years we will likely see some of Dick Cheney's young protégés come to power in a new conservative administration determined restore the glorious conservative order that was cut so tragically short. by George W. Bush's mismanagement of the conservative dream.

.