Bipartisanship?

Should Republicans seek more bipartisanship? The answer is an unequivocal "Sometimes."

People mean different things by bipartisan. Most politicians mean "shut up and do what we want", and "bipartisanship" mostly becomes a rhetorical club to swing at opponents.  Practically speaking, I think there are a couple ways to approach bipartisanship.

1. Compromise [Unlikely]: Republicans and Democrats are not likely to pursue bipartisan compromise on the more significant, contentious issues.  As Atrios has so often reminded us, People Disagree About Stuff.  Compromising over those disputes is almost invariably a bad idea.  It's bad politics (because you're angering your supporters) and bad policy (because you're splitting the policy baby).

   What's more, I don't think we really want that kind of bipartisanship.  It invariably involves horse-trading (you can buy my vote if I can buy your vote).  Outside of government, we call that sort of thing collusion and those of us being colluded against get stuck with much higher prices (government spending & taxes).  Russell Roberts' terrific 1995 essay ("If you're paying, I'll have top sirloin") touched on this point.

2. Collaboration [Yes, hopefully]: The second kind of bipartisanship - working together on areas of mutual agreement - is much more possible, and Republicans really ought to pursue it.  We don't do enough collaborative, bi-partisan policy-making, because politicians tend to focus on the more contentious issues.  For instance, everybody basically agrees on things like transparency, but that means there are relatively few points to be scored.  Everybody wants to Win The War, nobody wants to fix the sink.  As a result, important things don't get done. Republicans can begin rebuilding their credibility by pursuing some of this low-hanging fruit.