Does Bipartisan Mean the Worst of Both Parties?

For years we have heard the term "bipartisan" proclaimed by our politicians: Bipartisan legislation, bipartisan commissions, bipartisan agreements and all manner of bipartisan happenings. But what exactly does this bipartisan term mean to you and me?

In “SOTU Antics Are a Bipartisan Failure” Jonah Goldberg writes, “Anything that can be used for politics gets used for politics now.” This leads one to question what the political motive is behind those who are quick to invoke the term “bipartisan.”

The Cambridge Dictionary defines bipartisan as “involving or having the support of both sides, esp. of political parties.” Merriam-Webster gives a similar definition: “marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties.”

Notice in these that bipartisan is an agreement “between two major political parties.” Does this alliance have any real meaning outside of the context of the political party politics of Washington, D.C.?

These definitions do not say anything about the third part of the equation, “We the people of the United States …”

It has been speculated that "bipartisan" was a front to insulate either of the two major political parties from blame when either the consequences of legislation are realized or the legislation is beneficial to the political parties rather than the people.

Fred Barnes in “Bipartisanship is Overrated” warns us that “When political parties hate each other as they do today, it can feel good when they agree. But agreement doesn’t mean good legislation.

Lydia DePillis, writing in The Washington Post reflects “The word "bipartisan" carries a special weight in Washington. … Just get an approximately equal number … to agree on something, and it should inoculate you against attacks from either side.”

Timothy Carney, writing for the Washington Examiner, warns that ““centrism” and “compromise” yielded the very results that the biggest businesses wanted, and also positioned the two senators perfectly for their K Street cashout. … Then in the end, “moderates” from both parties reap their reward on K Street where their ideological “flexibility” is an asset.”

Later in “Bipartisanship usually means political plunder” Carney opines “When both parties come together for a centrist love-fest, I think that usually means irresponsible government that rewards the special interests.” K Street in D.C. is known as the epicenter of the special interests’ lobbyists.

In “The problem with bipartisanship,” Sam Haselby, writes:

“The ideal of bipartisanship is what historians call an invented tradition, a new thing that cloaks itself in venerability as a way of obscuring its lack of accomplishment. … bipartisanship can cloak corruption, obscure chasms between politicians and the people they are supposed to be serving, or simply show that the leadership of both parties has become a closed club.”

Again, begging the question, what is the benefit to the alliance two political parties at the expense of the third party, the people?

Our National Debt exceeds $35 trillion with no signs of a willingness by our elected officials to reduce it despite massive election years rhetoric to the contrary. We are asked in “What is "bipartisanship?" published in The Economist:

“So next time you Americans hear that 'partisan' is bad and 'bipartisan' is good, ask yourself of 'bipartisanship' … is it the worst elements of both parties getting together to give each other favors and sending the bill to '2025 Generation, Screwed Over Lane, Debtsville, D.C.?'"

So, when we speak of bipartisan legislation, or a bipartisan alliance, should the third component, the people, be holding onto their wallets?

The best interpretation of the term "bipartisan" does not come from political scholars, politicians or from the media. I have found the best definition in season 3 episode 4 of the 1960’s Television show Mission Impossible titled “The Play.”

One of the actors, during a political conversation, declares: “Alliance has been defined as two thieves each with their hands so entangled in the other man’s pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third.”