We are hearing an unending stream of please for ‘bipartisanship’ on the part of the Republican Party and the corporate press.  People with actual memories have pointed out this sentiment was utterly lacking when Republicans dominated all branches of government.  Fewer have pointed out that when Democrats had a small majority in the Senate, Republicans there did all they could to prevent Democratic legislation by unprecedented use of the filibuster.  And of course, when asked to cooperate on the stimulus package just passed by the House, not one Republican showed any interest in bipartisanship, even though the bill reflected compromises on their behalf.

And yet, Time magazine’s columnist Mark Halperin tells us after Republicans unanimously voted against his stimulus package in the House:

This is a really bad sign for Barack Obama to try to change Washington…. He needs bipartisan solutions. They went for it and they came up with zero…. [This] does not bode well for a future that is supposed to be post-partisan. […]

  Marc Armbinder reports

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)  will soon issue a statement contending that Obama’s promise to “put an end to petty politics” is “threatened” as the White House and their allies “are making political threats rather than crafting a bipartisan economic stimulus plan.”

He’ll call on Obama to “immediately disavow” plans by liberal interest groups who have announced their intention to run attack ads against the Republicans.

My favorite semi-conservative blog, Balloon juice, is appropriately sympathetic.

Bipartisanship for Republicans and the corporate press matters only when Democrats control the House, Senate, and Executive.  Otherwise the opposition party (Democrats) is un-American, opposing Bush was “Bush hatred,” a charge often repeated.  yadah yadah yadah.  For eight years we have endured this.

I think there is a religious twist we can use to understand the demented psychology we see at work here.

I have long believed the Fundamentalist Christian deity was a perfect model for a abusive husband.  Frequently violent, always running tests of your love, saying his jealousy was evidence of his love, and, in between blows and tests, continually telling you how much he loved you.

When you finally started to leave, more promises of love followed – and threats of violence.  Israel can be considered an abused spouse from this perspective.

Modern ‘conservatives,’ so dominated by Fundamentalism,  has internalized their deity in a strange case of multiple spirit possession.  

Let’s return to considering the endless bleating about the joys of ‘bipartisanship’ by Republicans and their corporate shills, now that the American people have ejected them at the polls. We see the same pattern.  They even use the language of marriage and romance. 

In today’s NY Times, Ramesh Ponnuru tells us if Democrats would only agree with Republicans about how to reform Social Security, which they attempted to destroy when they were in power, )while ignoring the really threatened program, Medicare).

In a column titled “Social Security on the First Date” Ponnuru writes “And who knows? Cooperation on Social Security could pave the way for bipartisan solutions on everything from tax reform to Medicare, by building good will and showing that such accomplishments are possible.”

Yes, and as with abusive spouses, building goodwill is a one way street that requires, as Republican Senator Kyl admitted, capitulation.  My way is the Bi-way.

This too has its echoes in Fundamentalism, where not living and believing the way they demand is evidence of ‘hating’ God.   

I hope that all Americans who love their country more than their party will come to see today’s talk of ‘bi-partisanship’ as the transparent ruse it is.