Can we once and for all get beyond the Republican conception of "bipartisanship"?

[Don't forget to click to enlarge.]

"Especially in the Senate, what passes for 'bipartisanship' too often involves a Democrat such as [Arkansas Sen. Blanche] Lincoln [whom Dionne reminds us is pushing along with Arizona Sen. John Kyl for a reduction in the estate tax which "would affect the estates of fewere than three out of every 1,0000 deceased, according to the Tax Policy Center"] allying with a Republican on behalf of the wealthiest interests in the country. And we're supposed to cheer this?"

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in his WaPo column today,

"Living with partisanship"

by Ken

And the interesting news, as Howie reported earlier today, is that Senator Lincoln has a potentially serious primary opponent!

Of course Digby has already been kind enough to give us the definitive definition of "bipartisanship" from the Republican side: date rape.

But for those still catching up, Dionne draws his lesson from, of all things, the "health care summit." Maybe I should have paid attention? Nah, that's crazy. Anyway, here's the lesson he drew:

At the health summit, the most revealing exchange was between the president and Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is also a physician. Barrasso's central concern is that the health-care system doesn't operate enough like every other market. He seemed troubled less by the many Americans who lack health insurance than by those who abuse the insurance they already have.

Addressing Obama, Barrasso suggested that we might be better off if people were insured only for catastrophic care. "Mr. President, when you say [people] with catastrophic plans, they don't go for care until later, I say sometimes the people with catastrophic plans are the people that are [the] best consumers of health care in . . . the way they use their health-care dollars."

"A lot of people" with insurance, he added, "come in and say, 'My knee hurts, maybe I should get an MRI,' they say. And then they say, 'Will my insurance cover it?' That's the first question. And if I say 'yes,' then they say, 'okay, let's do it.' If I say 'no,' then they say, 'Well, what will it . . . cost?' And 'What's it [going to] cost?' ought to be the first question. And that's why sometimes people with . . . catastrophic health plans ask the best questions, shop around, are the best consumers of health care."

Obama played the old TV character Columbo, who thrived on posing seemingly naive questions: "I just am curious. Would you be satisfied if every member of Congress just had catastrophic care? Do you think we'd be better health-care purchasers?"

Barrasso answered in the affirmative, though he didn't propose that senators dump their present coverage. Obama came right back: "Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000 . . . because that's the reality for a lot of folks. . . . They don't fly into [the] Mayo [Clinic] and suddenly decide they're going to spend a couple million dollars on the absolute, best health care. They're folks who are left out."

Obama concluded: "We can debate whether or not we can afford to help them, but we shouldn't pretend somehow that they don't need help."

As neatly as anything I have seen, this exchange captured the philosophical and emotional difference between the two parties. Democrats on the whole believe in using government to correct the inequities and inefficiencies the market creates, while Republicans on the whole think market outcomes are almost always better than anything government can produce.

That's not cheap partisanship. It's a fundamental divide. The paradox is that our understanding of politics would be more realistic if we were less cynical and came to see the battle for what it really is.

Now if we could just be sure which side of the divide the president is on!

#