Bipartisanship? That didn't last long

A lot of the response of the way voting went for the stimulus package has been that in spite of Obama's efforts bipartisanship sure didn't last very long. The obvious reason is intransigent Republicans stuck in ideology hoping that Obama fails so they have something to run against in 2010. The useful question is why are they stuck in ideology? We can expand the question to ask why are both major parties driven by their extreme fringes? Why are the moderates ignored? Because most of our political races are in "safe" seats, the candidate from a particular party will always win it, and our primary elections (except for president and those primaries are only for president) usually have very low turnout. That means the candidate can be elected by 5% to 15% of eligible voters. And the fierce party fringe can easily control the outcome.

What to do? Opening primaries to all voters, instead of party members, will help. But that doesn't help much. What seems best is to get rid of party primaries in favor of a truly open election. The top two vote getters, no matter the party, move on to the general election. Party regulars hate it, of course. But it may happen. An initiative for such a primary will be on the ballot in Calif. in 2010 and Arnold, weary of deadlock (see recent news of Calif. budget mess), is for it.

A scenario has been rolling around in my head. Might the Party of Lincoln, the Grand Old Party, drift so far from reality that those who are fiscal conservatives and social moderates might split off to form another party? How long would such a process last? Be careful what you wish for says a dissenting opinion -- not because they like the current GOP (they most definitely do not), but because without a viable opposition the Democrats will likely become lazy. At the moment, the current GOP is not a viable opposition. Most of this link discusses how to increase black participation in the party.

But why do Dems need opposition? Consider the case of Minnesota, in which the state legislature is controlled by Dems and have no threat of losing that control. That means they really don't need to cater to their fringe constituents -- like gays. No penalty for dismissing a small, unpopular minority. It is quite a bit different when you have to fight for every vote. Most of this post is about something that is newsworthy, but not really all that interesting: a gay Republican state senator (there is such a beast?) who voted against expanding the definition of marriage to include gays. Yawn.