It’s possible to take this line of argument too far, of course. All else equal, it’s easier to reach a deal when the representatives from each side have a history of working well together. But we have deep-seated polarization in American politics because the donors, activists, and office-holders of the two parties are committed to very different ideological programs. And we have repeated high-stakes brinksmanship because one party—that would be the Republicans—has decided to abandon political convention in pursuit of its goals, which means that once-routine actions like keeping the government running or raising the debt ceiling are now part of the fight.
In the wake of Obama’s press conference today—which featured plenty of presidential praise for Boehner, but also made clear how far we are from a debt ceiling deal—it will be interesting to see what journalistic frame prevails. Will reporters adopt business-world jargon about a “lack of trust” undermining the debt ceiling talks? Or will they tell the story in terms of political parties, which is the only way to understand what’s really going on?

This illustrates why - in their (perhaps forgivable) misguided zeal to "create something different," the so-called Founding Fathers doomed us to a future of win/lose, us -vs- them, sports-metaphored-to-death, bi-cameral b******t. In a two-party, winner-take-all system, parties don't have to work together. 18+ more months and I look forward to being a contented expatriate. Hasta luego, boludos.
#1 Posted by Walter Conger, CJR on Mon 11 Jul 2011 at 03:43 PM