SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University and Visiting Scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), writes:
In his Washington Babylon item of August 18), Ken Silverstein wonders if there is anything more boring than an organization called the “Bipartisan Policy Center?” How about yet another world-weary reporter mocking any attempts at a constructive centrism?
Amid an epidemic of journalistic cynicism, partisan extremism, blogger fanaticism, and consumer materialism, standing up for bipartisanship, for moderation, for a respite from excess, is indeed a bold – and much needed — move. Historically, bipartisanship is in the great American political tradition, advocated by George Washington, practiced by Abraham Lincoln, perfected by Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, and made standard by Harry Truman’s and Dwight Eisenhower’s consensus-oriented Cold War politics. I admit, as the author of a recent book called “Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents,” and as a (new) Visiting Scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center itself, I am biased. But I know where I stand. I would rather be part of the search for a solution to some of our knottiest but trans-partisan policy problems, than add to America’s troubles as another know-it-all, pessimistic, polarizing reporter or academic.
Well, bipartisanship may have been a fine idea back in the days when America had two parties (or more) offering very distinctive policy proposals, but that was long ago. I’m not one of those people who think that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable, but unfortunately they become more so with each passing day. So bipartisanship as practiced by the BPC means taking the “best” ideas from the two parties (which have very few ideas to speak of, and most of them are bad ones) and compromising in the middle. It’s hard to get excited about that prospect.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
Estimated number of people who watched a live Webcast of a hair transplant last fall:
A rancher in Texas was developing a system that will permit hunters to kill animals by remote control via a website.
A man in Japan was arrested for stealing a prospective employer’s wallet during a job interview, and a court in Germany ruled that it is safe for a woman with breast implants to be a police officer.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."