The Necessity of Tri-Partisanship

Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes (aka CJ Smith). 29 years old, happily married, adroit purveyor and voracious student of all kinds of information, theories, methods of inquiry, and forms of practice. Studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church in Canada. Main interests: military theory, diplomacy, foreign affairs, medieval history, religion & politics (esp. Islam and Christianity), and political grand bargains of all shapes and sizes.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. “do not strike me as being as serious as they need to be.”

    Right, because you have looked at them. At all.

    Would you be able to present your sophistry to Rep Paul Ryan’s face? Didn’t think so.Report

  2. Will says:

    That’s not a very charitable interpretation of the Republican’s governing philosophy, Chris. It seems to me that if you’re going to break down the major parties into ideological subsets, you ought to at least acknowledge the libertarian, anti-corporatist streak running through the GOP.Report

  3. JohnR says:

    “The difficulty here of course is that the Republican party is completely opposed to the liberal-centrist agenda en toto. ”
    “I don’t know how to pull off a tri-partisan bargain, but this is the only way anything is going to get done at this point.”

    So, essentially, your position is that the only things that can be passed are Republican initiatives that the other ‘2 sides’ will go along with. I agree in general, although I may quibble about the details. We have government by toddler tantrum.Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to JohnR says:

      You don’t need all Republicans – just some; you don’t need all centrists, just some; you don’t need all Democrats, just most of them. I know this is beating a dead horse, but Wyden-Bennett (or something like it) is acceptable to some – though admittedly not most – Republicans. It is acceptable to most centrists. It is acceptable to all but the most heavily union-influenced Democrats and adored by Starbucks liberals. I’d wager that you’d be as or more likely to get to 60 votes with Wyden-Bennett as you would be with something acceptable to all the Democrats and most centrists.Report

      • Chris Dierkes in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        I’ve always thought Wyden-Ben. would have been a better way to go. But I doubt that will ever happen and I’m afraid whatever passes (if anything) will be worse than the Senate bill.Report

        • North in reply to Chris Dierkes says:

          I have genuine fondness for Wyden-Bennett. Perhaps if Obama decides to run away from his party’s bill he should try pushing that. My cynical side says, however, that even if he somehow convinced the Dems to move it forward the Republican supporters would leap off of it like fleas on a hot skillet.
          The current bill, despite its warts and sweeteners, after all is significantly more conservative than its’ namesake from 1994.Report

  4. Kyle says:

    Thinking about this, it’d be helpful if the centrists stood as their own party, then that way when the voters repudiate them, they can’t just blame agitators from the base or another party’s politics. Centrism, as defined here, is a party without challenge and in control of far too much.Report

  5. Art Deco says:

    Many years ago Sidney Blumenthal put it thus: “The ‘sensible center’ inspires no sensibility at all”.

    Centrists are corporatist types, usually socially liberal

    Just what we need…Report