Defining 'bipartisanship'

Webster's Dictionary defines bipartisanship as: "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement and compromise between two major political parties." This means that-contrary to what Jamie Friedland wrote in his Feb. 10 column, "The spam we need"-if President Barack Obama claims to be bipartisan, he will have to cooperate and compromise with the Republicans. It seems, however, that since the Democrats now have majorities in both houses, they have thrown their campaign promise of bipartisanship to the wind.

I wonder why Friedland thinks that "the impotent Republican minority in the House of Representatives will produce nothing but drama and headlines, but, then again, maybe he's making inferences based on the past, because that's about all the Democrats have done as the minority in the past decade. I find it ironic that, while in the minority, Democrats screamed for bipartisanship and railed against George W. Bush for not listening to them-but, as soon as they take power, they embrace the rule of the bully majority that they themselves so decried.

So which definition of "bipartisanship" does Friedland subscribe to? Is bipartisanship active compromise between the parties? Or is it the "I won, so I'll ignore the minority" mentality? All I know is that however you define "bipartisanship," it shouldn't change based on who's in office-some might call that just plain "partisan."

Daniel Simpson

Trinity '11