The baneful effects of partisanship . . .

The phrase used as a title for this post is borrowed from George Washington's farewell address, and it is as relevant today as it was when he warned his colleauges of the ill-effects of putting party ahead of country.  To get us past this moment of paralysis, we need an accurate diagnosis of the cause of the current debilitating polarization, and that itself is far beyond the influence of toxic partisanship to sustain a consensus on how we got here, let alone how to get unstuck.]

Let's begin with the few held by the White House to a great extent: that the problems inherited by the Obama Administration were of such number and severity that their solution would take a 5 to 6 year period, thus making Obama's first term pretty much an iffy proposition.  History suggests that economic downturns rooted in financial free falls take longer to repair than do regular recessions.  So, in fairness, Obama does have a disadvantage he had little hand in creating.  He bears some responsibiliy by hiring the very economic aids whose ideas contributed to the financial break-up in the first place -- Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in particular.  And Obama  demonstrated a deferential attitude to experts on economic issues that diminished confidence in his ability to see how the times called for bolder action than  we got. 

Meanwhile Republicans coalesced around a refusal to allow Obama's campaign promise of bipartisanship come to pass; instead, they vowed unanimous opposition to any proposals favored by Obama and Democrats.  They deprived the President of a single vote for the Stimulus Package and the President helped them in this regard by turning the spending targets to Pelosi and Reid who had fellow Democrats lined up as recipients, giving Republicans good reason to be unsupportive of the Keynesian effort to prime the pump.

What might the President had done differently to secure Republican voters and yet get a stimulus in action:?  Tthat is our next post's topic.