For example, they can all agree that unemployment is a big problem, but the Republican members’ plans of action will vary from doing nothing (“the markets will work it out”) to maybe some assistance (tax breaks) to employers to hire more. The Democratic members views/plans will start on the other side of the spectrum (e.g., restrictions on layoffs like a one year notice to the employees, or tax penalties to companies that lay off workers or move operations and jobs overseas) and then also move to the “middle” (so might also include tax breaks to employers who hire more). But the members of both parties that find common ground in the middle are simultaneously being pulled to that party’s end of the spectrum by the members out there. Bipartisanship succeeds on the issue only if the middle is large enough to form a majority in both houses, strong enough to withstand the pressures to move members/votes to the two ends of the spectrum, and also consistent with the then President.

The other hindrance to bipartisanship is that each party is continually positioning itself politically for the next election (always no more than 22 months away). This unfortunately forces the party to contrast its position with the opposition’s, i.e., to disagree with it by proposing different solutions — an unproductive but hard to avoid by-product of the American electoral and political systems.

Tony