Elections do indeed have consequences. The consequences of the latest U.S. Presidential election are taking the form of a titanic debate boiling down to liberty versus socialism.
Amidst this debate, there are calls for “bipartisanship”. But why would the winner of the election, with a self-proclaimed mandate for “change” want to reach out to the other side? On many of the issues, the Democrats simply have a different worldview than the Republicans. Given that the Democrats won the election, and enjoy large voting majorities in the House and Senate, who needs the Republicans? What point would it serve for the winners of an election to water down their legislative goals with the policies and perspectives of the other side — the policies and perspectives that they don’t agree with? If they believe in their policies, and have the votes to get them done, they should just do so.
But perhaps they don’t really believe.
Perhaps by making token outreaches, and token modifications, they can give the impression of consideration and compromise, and provide political cover for themselves when things don’t work out as planned. This, I suggest, is the likely purpose of bipartisanship. It is rational for political purposes, but remains irrational for purposes of sound public policy.
Sound economic principles don’t need to be watered down and compromised upon with those that are less sound. The Republicans ought to have thoroughly learned this lesson, and should greet any calls for bipartisanship by the other side with complete skepticism, and should likewise stop their own calls for bipartisanship, as they make no sense. They had their chance and blew it big time. The best they can do now is provide thorough and credible alternatives via a well-executed marketing war. The American people will sort out the damage. With protests mounting as the truth comes out about the Democrats’ plans for government, they’ve already begun to do so.