Iowa successfully procrastinates on gay marriage ban

[Darth Wong]

In theory, any issue that gets bipartisan support is assumed to have such importance that it exceeds the level of factional conflict that comes from a two-party political system. I guess if Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, then something can get done.

That depends on which theory you're talking about. I would argue that a demand for "bipartisanship" only increases the power of influence peddling, back-room deals, and society's lowest common denominator.

In practice, any bipartisan agreement is certainly going to be a watered down, tepid compromise between competing ideals with pragmatism smack dab in the middle. That's 'progress' for you.

The PATRIOT Act wasn't watered down. They casually took away peoples' right to a fair trial.

I personally think that bipartisanship is more of a convenient excuse for preserving the status quo. Not every single politician might think that way, but the country as a whole is so terrified of change (just look at the health care debacle) and so in love with this idiotic idea that "gridlock" is a good thing (a mantra repeated by many Americans here on this forum) that adding another stupid pointless requirement before passing a law seems perfectly reasonable to them.

[Simon_Jester]

Why the fuck is it so important for things to be "bipartisan" anyway?

Because of...

Who gives a flying fuck whether something has "bipartisan support"?

...idiots.

Idiots who are not firmly welded into one camp or the other by propaganda cannot tell which side is right, because that would require them to know the difference between smart and stupid policies. Being idiots, they can't.

If you want idiots to vote for you, calling your plan "bipartisan" is a good idea if you can get away with doing it. And all politicians want idiots to vote for them.

I personally think that bipartisanship is more of a convenient excuse for preserving the status quo. Not every single politician might think that way, but the country as a whole is so terrified of change (just look at the health care debacle) and so in love with this idiotic idea that "gridlock" is a good thing (a mantra repeated by many Americans here on this forum) that adding another stupid pointless requirement before passing a law seems perfectly reasonable to them.

This is also part of the problem. But that ties more into demanding what I'd call "real" bipartisanship: you make a demand you know can't be met to block action. Whereas the other reason for talking about bipartisanship is that you're trying to make your limited accomplishments look more impressive, to appeal to idiots.