THE BIPARTISAN BETRAYAL

"Party-spirit...which at best is but the madness of many for the gain of a few." --Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

It is utterly impossible to view, listen to, or read any segment of the corporate news machine without hearing every newscaster, and every possible pundit, giving up some rap about, yes, "bipartisanship." Every major political figure in the U.S. is also carefully schooled on how to include the word in every possible 10-second sound bite.

It resounds like a bronze gong in a Buddhist temple, vibrating and burrowing into consciousness, overwhelming all other sounds, until we, the people, find it laced neatly into our conversations with friends, comrades, and loved ones.

The ubiquitous American media echo chamber effect has millions thinking that "bipartisanship" is as natural as, say, sunshine in an African summer, or rain in spring. In essence, it is an idea that is rarely questioned. Why not?

The very idea of bipartisanship stems from the position that two parties must find a way to work together. You hear no one discussing tripartisanship, or quadpartisanship, do you? Isn't that odd? Aren't there more than two political parties in the U.S.? Bipartisanship is, then, a political strategy designed to channel all political activity through both parties.

This strategy is, therefore, a strategy of exclusion, for by limiting the range of acceptable debate to those advanced by the two quite similar political parties (which are both mere instrumentalities of corporate power and wealth), the full chorus of political opinion, from the left and right, are left out of the realm. Nor is this a negligible slice of political life.

Consider the recent elections, where barely 50% of eligible voters participated in the presidential poll. As the race was razor thin, and the so-called "victor" claimed between 200-to-950 votes to win, then that "victor" can only truly claim to directly represent the will of about 25% of the electorate!

Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: the "victor" was either rejected or ignored (by not voting) by about 75% of the American electorate!

This is a democracy of the absurd.

One need look no further than the Ashcroft confirmation for the lofty post of U.S. Attorney- General. Despite unprecedented opposition from literally millions of constituents, senators voted their party interest first and foremost. Indeed, senators from both parties voted for the nominee, with some saying they did so "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

Both parties are parties, not of the people, but of the rulers. It's time to organize to break this political monopoly.

At the very core of this idea of bipartisanship is a raging contradiction, for isn't politics really all about divisions? Don't people really have starkly different political visions and objectives? Don't wealthy folks see the world differently from the poor? Don't urbanites have different concerns than rural folks? Don't blacks have distinctly different historical experiences than Whites? Don't Latinos have particular social and political interests (for example, immigration, etc.) that differ from many Anglos?

We can act as if no such differences exist, but they do, and history has taught us that they only need the barest opportunity to express such divergences.
Bipartisanship is only the latest illusion to prop up the status quo, for the two big parties stay in power, and the majority of Americans lose.

It is an illusion that no longer need delude us.