Unfortunately, our politics have become such that a lawmaker who is truly bipartisan can never get elected. Or even if this person can get elected, they will not get the support of their national party.

In my opinion this is much more true of the Republican party than the Democrats.

I had a boss at a previous job who was a libertarian who generally voted Republican. He was a conservative Christian but did not believe in the government dictating what people should do in their personal lives. Therefore, he supported the right to abortion, even though his religion forbade it. He felt that it wasn't the government's place to dictate this.

He wanted to run for office in his home state. I don't remember the office, perhaps it was to be a delegate in his state's assembly (like Congress, but on a state level). He was going to run as a Republican but was prevented from doing so by the state Republican party. Because he was pro-choice, they would not let him run as a Republicn.

There are some pro-choice Republicans in national office from other states. But the bipartisan Republican is a dying breed. It is a party where dissent is not tolerated. The Democrats, for their part, have always had a wider range of beliefs, at least in recent years. Especially today, their majority is so slim that they have no choice but to cater to the more conservative party members, otherwise they would not get the necessary votes to get anything done.

It is a sad situation. Some people say that if we had many political parties, as some countries do, that this would solve the problem. I personally don't think so. In countries where a coalition is needed to form a government, I have definitely seen in some countries that a small political party with extreme views is allowed to dictate policy, otherwise they would leave the coalition and the government would fail. I see this situation as very similar to what happens in the US, where conservative members of a single party are granted favors to make sure they will vote for some law.

Isn't it ironic that one of the main goals of the founding fathers in drafting the constitution was to avoid the formation of political parties? Nonetheless, it happened almost immediately (in the 18th century it was the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists) and has progressed from there. The fact is, there will always be problems and the party in power will tend to get the blame for the troubles of the moment. The result is that the balance of power bounces back and forth between Republican (Nixon/Ford, Reagan and the Bushes) and the Democrats (Carter, Clinton, and Obama). It would be great for the U.S. if some Independents could win high office, but that will never happen. The two major parties are far too rich and far too entrenched.

Miland:Perhaps someone who lives in the USA should write a book entitled something like The case for bipartisanism

In my opinion it is not really a lack of bipartisanship that is the issue. When it comes to catering to the interests of entrenched power, the two parties can work together quite happily. The huge partisan battles are really just political theater. It's very much like the taunts professional wrestlers throw at each other before matches. It keeps the spectators excited in spite of the outcome having been decided in advance.

If you listen to this superficial layer regarding the healthcare bill, you hear the right wing wailing about attacks on the free market and loss of individual liberty and so on. From the sound of it you would think the Democrats were planning to nationalize the entire infrastructure. In reality, even single payer was never really on the table. And the final bill is about as minimal a change as could possibly be undertaken. And a careful reading of the actions of the Obama team show that the final product is basically commensurate with what they had planned from the beginning.

The reasons for the Republican opposition to the bill are not ideological. Rather, despite representing essentially minimal progress for the populace, such legislation provides enormous opportunity for handing out political favors. Which states will gain the most... which industries will be most favored... When the elections roll around those favors will translate into campaign contributions. And right now with Democrats in power, they are in a much better position to be handing out the favors.

The upshot is that the whole circus: liberals, conservatives, 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Teabaggers, etc. merely act to distract the populace so that government can get down to its real job which is pandering to the existing power structure. Whether this state of affairs is intentional or just a happy accident... I don't know.

[Intermission]
From the POV of a Taiwannese, your talk is very interesting. Our country is also moving towards a bipartisan goverment, between the Kuomingtang (Nationals or KMT) and Democratic Progress Party (DPP). But the reason is that they are divided by a central issue, about whether to unite with China (or to at least stay in status quo) or to seek independence.

It seems that in most cases, the existence of party is due to a disagreement on an issue. But I can't really see the issue dividing Dems and Reps now in America.

Please go on~
[/Intermission]

@ LyzTyphone: Interesting! Is the Guomindang or Democratic Progress Party seriously considering uniting with China? I wonder what that would do to the politics on both sides, considering Taiwan is somewhat more democratic and PRC has a single party? (hopefully, if it were to happen, all would end up good and well) (and only one N in Taiwanese)

@ Formicxjo - I envy you - in Australia, you have to vote, and quite frankly there isn't anyone worth voting for (although, I'll go Liberals because them and the Greens are against Internet Censorship (well, the Libs were at least last year). Labor is more or less overfocusing on climate change, as if anything to do with running the country doesn't matter, which is not going to end well if we end up with no country to fight against climate change
Gonna be a stellar year for voting for me, considering this is my first time!

@ Benanhalt - Cheers mate - here, the "Liberal" party is the "conservative one" (not like in the US though) and the "Labor" party is the "socialist one" (contrary to its name, and not real socialism either). The Greens and Nationals are the only ones who really have a name that suits them!

benanhalt:The reasons for the Republican opposition to the bill are not ideological.

I thought it was about big money (that of the insurance companies, specifically), and possibly this pressure caused Hillary Clinton's attempt to try something similar in the 90s to fail, is that right?

At any rate I sincerely hope that Obama will not lose his nerve in standing up firmly for the public option and presenting a clear vision. People have to be persuaded.

ceigered:Gonna be a stellar year for voting for me, considering this is my first time!

Go for it! You are about to share power with your country's rulers. Take the privilege seriously enough to find out what the parties are offering and weigh up your decision, and maybe go to a good restaurant afterwards to celebrate.

Miland:

ceigered:Gonna be a stellar year for voting for me, considering this is my first time!

Go for it! You are about to share power with your country's rulers. Take the privilege seriously enough to find out what the parties are offering and weigh up your decision, and maybe go to a good restaurant afterwards to celebrate.

Well, my main concerns are mostly stability of the economy, infrastructure, welfare etc, Education, Net Censorship and relation to the Monarchy (K.Rudd wants to "open debate" (opposed), I want the Monarchy, maybe because I'm more than half English and he's... like... a 16th English ).

And the insurance companies might be another thing stopping Obamacare - if I'm correct, they won't be getting anywhere near as many customers if people realise the govt can help them.