What Bipartisan Spirit?

Drudge echoes the London Telegraph with the headline "Bipartisan Spirit Crumbles?" while the British newspaper reports on President Obama's choice to pick a battle with Rush Limbaugh.

More on that in a moment.

Who declared that there was a bipartisan spirit abroad in the land? That's the real question. The evidence is to the contrary - notwithstanding the white flag of legislative surrender from all the RINOs in Congress. That surrender came months ago during the collapse of any pretense of the Bush Administration to a conservative governance.

The political conflict in the United States is rooted in philosophical and moral differences that represent entirely different world views. It is an ongoing battle by two opposing factions to the hearts and minds of a larger, third group. One group cherishes the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and recognizes them for the God-given rights and responsibilities that they are. They believe that freedom comes from God and cannot be abrogated by any government or group. The other group believes that rights are relative, that freedoms must change to fit the times, and that reliance on a supernatural power for guidance is clunky, inefficient and often at odds with humanity's vision of the future. The first group sees government as a necessary evil and potential threat; the second sees government as the main, vital instrument of all human progress.

The third group, a vast multitude of people who don't pay that much attention to politics because they are busy living their lives. Its members cannot be conveniently categorized as they range from people who would prefer near anarchy to others who long to be wrapped in the arms of the nanny state. Some will be religious but not political; others will be more political than religious. Most will share a general libertine view of cultural issues because they are steeped in the culture of today. It is in general a materialist, consumerist, hedonistic people who have good hearts, and when they look at themselves in the mirror, which they do a lot, they see individuals who care about others and the environment.

It's the thought, you see, that counts. In general many prefer that the government take care of the business of welfare, protecting Mother Earth, and keeping us safe from terrorists and toxic chemicals in our food supplies. They want it all. The problem is that a government big enough to give you everything and protect you from all harm is also big enough to take away your precious liberty. And given enough time, it will.

This third group is not easily convinced by the first group that they should inconvenience themselves with additional personal responsibility. Thus they become the big "moderate" swing vote that progressives can woo with feel-good promises. One of those promises is that the "people" deserve bipartisan consensus on the issues. It is an empty choice built on a false premise.

If bipartisan consensus means that the progressives always move their agenda forward, then that is a loss for conservatives trying to defend the erosion of personal freedom and responsibility. Thus a true conservative should never embrace bipartisan consensus for the sake of bipartisanship itself. The only bipartisan consensus acceptable is one in which liberty and personal responsibility is advanced in some way.

We have seen precious little of that in recent years. The 1990s welfare reform was probably the last real example, and ironically that was with a Democrat as president, so there you go!

The moral of this story: Beware calls for bipartisan consensus. It's the sound right now of progressives enlisting the help of the vast muddled middle to roll the conservatives.

Finally, rather than defend Rush Limbaugh from the president, it seems Rush can defend himself quite ably and did so in this post by National Review's Rich Lowry.

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters?

Rush also makes this interesting observative:

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Read the whole thing.