<\/p>\n
One of the most intriguing aspects of the current debate on
\nthe economic recovery act is the strange way the terms “postpartisan” and
\n“bipartisan” are being thrown around by both politicians and the media.<\/p>\n
President Obama campaigned as a postpartisan candidate.\u00a0 <\/span>Postpartisan means that politics must In case no one in Washington has noticed, postpartisan does Now, folks in Washington are a very smart group–they The new progressive vision is not based in the idea that there President Obama has long recognized that politics is not President Bush promised “bipartisanship,” a bringing But he is trying to do that with a Congress that doesn’t <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the most intriguing aspects of the current debate on the economic recovery act is the strange way the terms “postpartisan” and “bipartisan” are being thrown around by both politicians and the media. President Obama campaigned as a postpartisan candidate.\u00a0 Postpartisan means that politics must move beyond the current party structure.\u00a0\u00a0A postpartisan vision\u00a0recognizes that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,10,1,51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-defining-progressive","category-economy","category-election-08","category-media"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nmove beyond the current party structure.\u00a0\u00a0A postpartisan vision<\/span>\u00a0recognizes that there are many voices in the larger body politic–and
\nthat a good number of those voices have never been heard in the American
\nprocess.\u00a0 <\/span>Thus, postpartisan, a
\nsort of generational mantra for those under 40, is an attempt to create new
\nrelationships, draw diverse people and perspectives to a table, and develop
\ninnovative possibilities to address social and political issues.<\/p>\n
\nnot mean bipartisan.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span> <\/span>Yes, the root word–partisan–is the same, but the prefix is different.\u00a0
\n<\/span>“Post” means “after, beyond, or subsequent to;” “bi” means “two.”<\/p>\n
\nattended lots of private schools and good colleges and most of them probably
\nstudied Latin.\u00a0 <\/span>Yet, every time the
\nnew President says “postpartisan,” they substitute “bipartisan.”\u00a0 <\/span>For nearly two weeks now, pundits have
\nbeen fuming about the failure of “bipartisanship” on the recovery package.\u00a0 <\/span>Republican politicians have asserted
\nthat because they didn’t vote for the act, President Obama’s attempt at bipartisanship
\nhas failed a mere ten days into his administration.\u00a0 <\/span>“He’s just like Bush,” some say.\u00a0 <\/span>“Bush came to office calling for bipartisanship, but he was
\nreally just the old politics of division.”\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, bipartisanship can never work in our
\npolitical system.\u00a0 <\/span>Someone has to
\ntake charge–be a leader–and enforce their party’s will on the other side.<\/p>\n
\nare TWO parties.\u00a0 <\/span>“Progressive” is not
\nsimply a linguistic find-and-replace for “liberal” as in “liberal” versus “conservative.”\u00a0 <\/span>Emerging progressive politics–and
\nreligion as well–insists that there are more than two voices.\u00a0 <\/span>The voices of the common good and the
\nvoices of vibrant faith come from multiple traditions and perspectives, and all
\nof these voices matter.\u00a0
\n<\/span>Progressives, unlike old-style liberals, approach this multiplicity with
\na certain degree of modesty.\u00a0
\n<\/span>Progressive politics isn’t about winning nor is it about balancing two
\nagendas. \u00a0<\/span>Progressive politics is
\nabout setting tables, about hearing and listening, about constructing new
\npossibilities where none currently exist.\u00a0
\n<\/span>It is pluralistic and adaptive, not dualistic and winner-take-all. Progressive
\npolitics is not a zero-sum game.<\/p>\n
\nabout two parties. \u00a0<\/span>More than a
\nyear ago, he said: “<\/span>I think the American people are hungry for
\nsomething different and can be mobilized around big changes, not incremental
\nchanges, not small changes. I think that there are a whole host of Republicans,
\nand certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don’t
\nbelieve anybody is listening to them, who don’t believe what politicians say.
\nAnd we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working
\ncoalition, a working majority for change.”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ntogether of two parties.\u00a0 <\/span>That
\nfailed.\u00a0 <\/span>President Obama never
\npromised bipartisanship.\u00a0 <\/span>He
\npromised a new era of moving beyond the old two-party politics–he promised “something
\ndifferent” around “big changes.” \u00a0<\/span>He promised to create something “after, beyond, or subsequent
\nto” the two-party divide that would include those who have been excluded. \u00a0<\/span>He is trying to forge a post-partisan
\npath to an innovative future.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\nunderstand the language he speaks.\u00a0
\n<\/span>The congressional Republicans and Democrats have something profound in
\ncommon.\u00a0 <\/span>They are stuck in a
\ndualistic world. \u00a0<\/span>How can they move
\nforward? A good first step would be to remember first-year Latin: postpartisan
\ndoes not mean bipartisan.\u00a0
\n<\/span>Sometimes a world of new possibilities turns on a phrase.<\/p>\n