Bipartisan governance?

John Harris and Helen Dewar, of the Washington Post, write that Democrats are skeptical of Bush's offer to govern in a bipartisan fashion in his second term. Ya think?

At this point, I'm nearly ready to call for a pox on all their houses. I am a strongly partisan Democrat, but I am not an idiot. I am also, I believe, more than just a little patriotic. I know that there are issues that transcend my own personal interests, that are better for the whole community than they are for me. I don't think that that applies to far too many of our leaders these days.

Even so, just picking on Bush for a minute, I am reminding myself that, yes, he did manage to govern in a bipartisan manner in Texas. Of course, he started out with Democrats in leadership positions. Bob Bullock was lieutenant governor; Pete Laney was Speaker of the House. Both presided over narrow Democratic majorities in their respective houses and made a concerted effort to include Republicans in leadership roles. For every committee, when a Democrat was chair, a Republican was vice-chair, and vice versa.

The story has it that when Bush was first elected and had his first meeting with Bullock, Bullock said something to the effect of: "Boy, we're gonna **** you six ways from Sunday." Bush's reply was said to be: "Well, if you're gonna **** me, you're gonna kiss me first." And then he kissed Bullock on the mouth. Bullock was said to be delighted by Bush's response, and the two got along rather well after that.

But Bullock and Laney were clearly moderates who helped Bush be moderate. They handled things in a bipartisan manner, and that meant that Bush had to be bipartisan. When Bush won his second term, Bullock was dead, we had a Republican lieutenant governor, and Republicans had gained control of the Senate. The trend against bipartisan governance in Texas was already well underway when Bush was elected President. It's very partisan in the Texas legislature now. So much so, that the last session was even more brutal than anything that went on in Washington.

I'm not thinking that there is a lot of hope for bipartisan action in Washington. There is very little of that hope for Texas.

This is not to say, however, that Democrats were always so clean and pure in their own governance when in power. Redistricting, for example, is a partisan activity, brutally controlled by whichever party is in power--including Democrats. Rumors of dead voters, even current conflicts over possible election fraud, are nothing to laugh at.

When the minority membership in a house is comparatively large, there is the potential to block the more extreme actions of the majority--and even the less extreme ones. The result is gridlock. To some extent, gridlock in Congress is a good thing for this country. It takes time, thought, and even some compromise before policy that affects us all is made or changed.

Unity in Congress can sometimes lead to poor policy, such as when the Patriot Act was passed in the aftermath of the Attacks. Some of the provisions of that law were unneeded by law enforcement, some eroded civil liberties in an unacceptable manner, and others simply expanded fear when courage was needed. Had there been less unity, some of these problems might have been solved as Congress worked out the details.

Having said that, however, I am a little sick of the disunity. Certainly, I am tired of the bickering and posturing that has no substance. I am tired of spin that tells me dark is light, bad is good, and up is down. And it comes from both parties. There is jockeying for power, when good governance should be the goal.

I admit to naivete here. Idealism. Too much faith in humanity. Perhaps I'm just too committed to hope and progress.

But, here's the deal. I didn't vote for George Bush. I didn't want him to win. I thought John Kerry was a better person, a better leader, and a better policy maker. But, since Bush won and Kerry didn't, that makes George Bush my president, too. As much as it galls me to even say that, yes, he's my president. And, by golly, he should also represent what I stand for. He should also see that my needs and concerns are addressed.

So here's what I want.

• Truth.
• Transparent government.
• Respect for opposing positions.
• Fairness.
• Honesty.
• Concern for the good of the nation, not just personal or partisan gain.

Is that too much to ask?