A positive advantage of the compromise you decry is that it can ensure policy stability. Take, for example, a bipartisan consensus that we should have food stamps. Democrats make it a little more generous, Republicans add some drug tests, but a bipartisan consensus is substantially better than, for example, what we have with the Mexico City Policy, where every 4-12 years whether global charities are allowed to mention abortion changes, causing a great deal of chaos and trouble for health providers and charities in low-income countries worldwide.
But in rich countries outside the US, what has generally happened is that one party has said "hey, let's do welfare provision" and when they've gotten elected, they've implemented that, and the other party, even though they originally opposed it, is forced not to remove it when they get elected because by that stage the policy has become too popular. In other words, what I referred to as accidental bipartisanship happens because there's a real process of political competition, and certain ideas win out in that real competition and then become sealed in place through democratic will.
On the other hand, the American polity is such that because no party ever actually governs- in the sense of setting all the policies they want- no one is ever accountable for their ideas. Thus both parties can bluster in a way entirely disconnected from reality. "Bipartisanship" might thus seem like the only way to get them back into reality, but a better strategy is actually to give people responsibility for governing, and then democratic selection can be exercised over their policies.
I think that sort of bipartisanship has to be looked at in comparison to what the alternative would be. To use the example of national security, generally (nearly) everyone would much prefer a bipartisan compromise on national security legislation, rather than both/all parties grandstanding to the point that nothing gets passed and national security goes unfunded.
In a world with disagreements between different voters (and especially when there are many axes of disagreement) bipartisanship is necessary in order for the whole concept of having a government at all to function. If no one is willing to work together and compromise in order to reach a common agenda, then nearly all the gains of working together rather than each group seceding and going its separate way are lost.
I don't disagree... but if the alternative to a bipartisan compromise is the status quo that everyone dislikes, I think the compromise can be considered more democratic than sticking with the status quo. If the public has a genuine disagreement, then a compromise is the only way to satisfy preferences. Given that bipartisanship (or tripartisanship, ect. in more complex political coalitions) is often necessary to get anything done, I don't think we can just dismiss it as a tool for maintaining power.
I think it's difficult in America because the system is constructed to create a deadlock. As such I concede that sometimes bipartisanship may sometimes be the only option to get anything done. But when rules that promote that very gridlock are being championed precisely in order to encourage bipartisanship, we have upside-down thinking.
A positive advantage of the compromise you decry is that it can ensure policy stability. Take, for example, a bipartisan consensus that we should have food stamps. Democrats make it a little more generous, Republicans add some drug tests, but a bipartisan consensus is substantially better than, for example, what we have with the Mexico City Policy, where every 4-12 years whether global charities are allowed to mention abortion changes, causing a great deal of chaos and trouble for health providers and charities in low-income countries worldwide.
But in rich countries outside the US, what has generally happened is that one party has said "hey, let's do welfare provision" and when they've gotten elected, they've implemented that, and the other party, even though they originally opposed it, is forced not to remove it when they get elected because by that stage the policy has become too popular. In other words, what I referred to as accidental bipartisanship happens because there's a real process of political competition, and certain ideas win out in that real competition and then become sealed in place through democratic will.
On the other hand, the American polity is such that because no party ever actually governs- in the sense of setting all the policies they want- no one is ever accountable for their ideas. Thus both parties can bluster in a way entirely disconnected from reality. "Bipartisanship" might thus seem like the only way to get them back into reality, but a better strategy is actually to give people responsibility for governing, and then democratic selection can be exercised over their policies.
I think that sort of bipartisanship has to be looked at in comparison to what the alternative would be. To use the example of national security, generally (nearly) everyone would much prefer a bipartisan compromise on national security legislation, rather than both/all parties grandstanding to the point that nothing gets passed and national security goes unfunded.
In a world with disagreements between different voters (and especially when there are many axes of disagreement) bipartisanship is necessary in order for the whole concept of having a government at all to function. If no one is willing to work together and compromise in order to reach a common agenda, then nearly all the gains of working together rather than each group seceding and going its separate way are lost.
I don't disagree... but if the alternative to a bipartisan compromise is the status quo that everyone dislikes, I think the compromise can be considered more democratic than sticking with the status quo. If the public has a genuine disagreement, then a compromise is the only way to satisfy preferences. Given that bipartisanship (or tripartisanship, ect. in more complex political coalitions) is often necessary to get anything done, I don't think we can just dismiss it as a tool for maintaining power.
I think it's difficult in America because the system is constructed to create a deadlock. As such I concede that sometimes bipartisanship may sometimes be the only option to get anything done. But when rules that promote that very gridlock are being championed precisely in order to encourage bipartisanship, we have upside-down thinking.