Brief note against bipartisanship

Let’s say that there are two species of bipartisanship. The first species we might term accidental bipartisanship. A typical case of accidental bipartisanship would be a position so compelling (for good or bad reasons) that no party disputes it. Often accidental bipartisanship will be invisible, scarcely commented upon. There may be good reasons to be skeptical of many instances of accidental bipartisanship but that is not what this post is about.

Instead, our target is the second species of bipartisanship deliberate bipartisanship. Deliberate bipartisanship is a bipartisan consensus reached, or aimed at, not organically because the position is too strong to deny, but deliberately because achieving bipartisan agreement in a particular area is thought to be important.

Deliberate bipartisanship, or at least the desire for such, is very common. There’s a general expectation in many countries of a bipartisan consensus on national security for example. Joe Manchin has recently defended the filibuster in the United States on the grounds that it forces both parties to work towards bipartisanship.

But why would it be considered virtuous that all major parties should be compelled to come to a consensus on something? To me, that sounds a lot like the formation of a cartel to deprive the ‘‘‘‘‘consumer’’’’’ (voters) of choice.

And here, I think, we’ve come to the rotten heart of bipartisanship. The determination in a section of the political class that many or even all matters should be resolved through bipartisanship is, at the base, a conviction that, in certain matters, the public must never be given a choice between two genuinely distinct political programs. “Let’s sort this one out between ourselves, rather than splitting on it, and so throwing it open to the capricious whims of the electorate.”

One of the interesting things about bipartisanship mania is the way it’s sold as anti-political especially in the US. The argument goes that politics is a bunch of people squabbling whereas bipartisanship “transcends politics”. But this is a curious concept of what it means to transcend politics. It’s still the same politicians making the decision, with political goals in mind, using political methods. The real meaning of the transcendence of politics here is the avoidance of democracy.

The interesting thing about anti-political sentiment, skepticism of politics and a desire to transcend politics is that it’s actually a blend of two perfectly contrary things, viz: 1. Contempt for the masses 2. Contempt for elites. The idea of being anti-political creates a false unity between these two very different things and a false unity between the (usually very different) people who endorse them.

So ordinary people are sold on anti-politics out of disgust for elites but in the deft hands of political elites, there is an attempt to turn anti-politics into a short-circuiting of democracy. As if “Bipartisanship”- a gathering of political elites on both sides- were somehow beyond politics. It’s the apex of elite power, and yet it masquerades with the anti-elite bona fides that attach themselves to being “anti-political” or “beyond politics”. Weird.

Remember, bipartisanship really just means twice as many politicians. For me and my house though, we’d prefer democracy.

A couple of things you might like if you enjoyed this post. Firstly, my free book which you can find by clicking this: Live More Lives Than One, and secondly my subreddit which you can find by clicking this: r/PhilosophyBear. Also please share this post if you liked it <3.