Thread by @torstenkathke

What always gets me about the "bipartisanship is what's needed" argument in the U.S. is that both Republicans and Democrats are such broad coalitions that in other governing systems they'd be three to five parties each.

"Bipartisan" usually means getting a few more centrist votes or not. When it doesn't happen that usually has little to do with the popular appeal of any specific legislation (like a *very* popular relief bill), and everything to do with the drawing of partisan battle lines.

As @NormOrnstein and Thomas E. Mann point out in this piece on myths about bipartisanship, "Republicans are one of the most extreme (even radical) conservative parties in the democratic world […] while Democrats look like a traditional center-left party."
washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-m…

Given this—and given that "bipartisan" can mean (especially in the Senate) that as few as one member of the opposition party votes with the majority—unless it's defined more clearly, it's not a very useful assessment of how widespread support for something is.

The "bipartisanship" framing is useful for giving the media something to talk about (e.g. "…failed to get bipartisan support") and for opposition leaders to complain about the majority.

It has dramatic structure. That's why news outlets like CNN fall back on it again and again.

But: Inequities in representation are baked into the American political system. Plus, voter suppression is a huge issue.

It's why Democratic senators or representatives get millions more votes nationally than Republicans but Republicans are still competitive.

Therefore, any idea of bipartisanship that is only interested in party members voting for/against something in the House or Senate chambers looks at the representatives of voters, and not at the people they represent.

If 70% of the people like something but you still frame it as a "failure of bipartisanship" it might not be a failure of bipartisanship, but a failure of you accurately reporting on the issue.

pewresearch.org/politics/2021/…

A lot would improve in media coverage of Congress if the explicit goal were to explain not primarily how much support something gets from senators and representatives, but how well senators and representatives are actually representing their constituents.

"Bipartisan" can still be a useful term. E.g. "broad bipartisan support" might telegraph something that other ways of phrasing may not.

But—and that's the TL;DR—stop using "bipartisan" when it obscures rather than helps us understand how well democracy is actually functioning.