Bipartisanship vs. partisanship

It's a significant issue. On the one hand, you have those--like Paul Krugman, in a pro-Edwards/anti-Obama op-ed--who say that "it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform.... [P]undits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public," and I'm mostly in agreement with that.

And then you have those like Ezra Klein who say:

I can't figure out what the Edwards plan is. How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point? The vulnerability? I've heard some suggest campaign finance reform, but that has to pass Congress, first, and Congress is where the system exhibits its most profound rot. Does Edwards mean to use the bully pulpit to spark social organizing, as Reagan did with his tax cuts, creating enough voter pressure to scare Congress into constituent service before corporate fealty? If so, how will that work?

This is actually what worries me about Edwards. I'm not convinced his calls for change are connected to an actionable theory of change.

And, as it turns out, I mostly agree with that, too. Here's the problem as I see it. Voters want the government to be an instrument of positive change and, as the last week has made abundantly clear, the rules of legislating don't allow for anything but the most incremental positive change to ever happen without something that looks like "bipartisanship". And yet, at the same time, voters want somebody who fearlessly advocates on their behalf--somebody who, dare I say, acts as their personal trial attorney. And anybody willing to take a stand on behalf of those without health care or those who will suffer from climate change or who oppose the war are, basically by definition, treading in partisan waters.

At the end of the day, though, voters will have to settle on the candidate who they believe has the greatest chance of bringing about the change they want. Clinton and Obama each have their own plans for change from within the system and though such plans have proven able to make small changes, I don't know if anybody's impressed with degree of change such plans can actually achieve. Nobody really cares about process. Few, I think, really want their advocates settling on a small-steps approach to leadership without at least trying something more bold. And I think the appeal of Edwards among those who support him is that he's the only one suggesting that there's an advocacy-oriented way around process--that if he or somebody like him were only willing to speak eloquently and forcefully and endlessly about the progressive vision for the world, the system will change under that pressure.

This, indeed, may not go anywhere. And, since his theory of change is largely untested, it would be nice to hear something more concrete: "I will spend the two months between my election and my assumption of office pressuring leaders in the Senate to end the filibuster. If they don't comply, I will provide you, the people, with the names of those who are fighting to keep progress stymied." Or something. But I think the fact that it's an untested theory agitates in its favor, given what the last 25-or-so years of the alternative has wrought.