As the President-elect heads to Washington one can see that his avowed bi-partisanship is less a matter to be honored in the House and more a problem of the senate. For all her faults (and they are many) Nancy Pelosi presides over a house chamber that is sufficiently partisan to achieve something like Democratic consensus at least on most days.
The senate is a different story. Harry Reid may once have been a boxer but he’s oddly without any scrap left in him. His tenure as the majority leader has been marked by a singular avoidance of confrontation with the G.O.P. That’s good news for Obama you might say but in fact the opposite is more precisely the case: the Republicans who believe that all government programs designed to save the banking system or the auto industry are socialism pure and simple are never going to be persuaded that an ambitious stimulus package is worth supporting.
Enter Harry Reid who is 9 times out of 10 unwilling to allow his slim Democratic majority to stand independently. Watching his stewardship of the Democratic party it is hard to remember why Senator Reid’s party was given majority status in the first place. Opposition to the war in Iraq? Job creation? The voters’ disgust over the misuse of power by the executive branch?
Yes Barack Obama promised to unify the red states and the blue but if the principle of unity is achieved at the expense of serious change then the new president will himself resemble old Harry. Bi-partisanship is a fair principle and it is not to be treated lightly as the Bush administration has managed to do with disastrous consequences. But neither should it be a monolithic totem of sacrifice before which the duly elected Democrats squander their opportunity to save the nation as F.D.R. once did by promising a new deal for Americans.
Not offending the hard right is not bi-partisanship though Harry Reid may not have heard.
Planet of the Blind 
Reed = Nevil Chamberlain
LikeLike