When I was in the military in the 1990's, this was all too clear. The things I observed enlisted and officers alike saying about then President Clinton, things that should have gotten them to court-martial, but were treated as nothing made this Democrat realize that a this was not the career path for me.

Sent by liz | 2:25 PM ET | 11-16-2007

We're not busted yet... but we risk getting there soon if this outlandish partisanship on both sides continues. For instance: here awe are confronted with issues like the need to reduce our consumption of oil, exhaust emissions into our air and traffic congestion that is the real cause for our crumbling infrastructure. And yet we cannot get meaningful legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President to even properly fund Amtrak, much less create more and better passenger and freight rail service. I hear both sides rant about these issues, but they do nothing to create ways to actually reduce the demand that creates the issues in the first place. Do our "deciders" not have childrena dn grandchildren to whom they want to leave a better world? If I were one of their offspring, I would disown the lot of them.

Stop the bickering and do something! We need more deeds, not words.

Sent by Stuart F. Nicholson | 2:36 PM ET | 11-16-2007

Mr. Brownstein's idea is, indeed, a bomb. More specifically, it's a dud. This notion that everyone's dissatisfactions can simply be assigned to some external problem of "partisanship" is a useless cop-out notion. By placing the blame on everyone, it actually holds no one responsible. It makes great fodder for talk shows, while neatly sidestepping any specific issue. Who's really in favor of "partisanship," after all? Who's actually against ending gridlock and producing solutions?

The telling question is: what do you consider to be an actual solution? More funding for Amtrak, as another commenter suggests? Or should we drill for more oil in Alaska? Guess what, suddenly we're back to disagreements; must be "partisanship" at fault again. "We need to compromise," you say? What's the compromise?

If you want to discuss specific issues, even strictly political issues like reassigning the responsibility for drawing districts, great. But "partisanship" as an all-purpose villain is nothing but a straw man.

Sent by MJ Kuhns | 3:32 PM ET | 11-16-2007

I don't blame the politicians, they're elected by the people. We have the government we asked for. No one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to fix what is wrong with this country. Mostly they want to fix blame.

Sent by Chris Burns | 8:32 PM ET | 11-16-2007

The main reason for the partisanship in the American way of doing things- is- as a society- America has not determined what tyoe of society it wants to fashion. Like Europeans- based on their judgement of history - have determined that a society has to be balanced - people have to pay taxes to maintain the system. Americans on the other hand are still naive and have not attained political maturity to understand the practical limits of democracy. A hint of racism still exists in the society - a clear example being the discussion centering around immigration. If the immigrants were from Europe or Canada- instead of Mexico- I do not know how the debate would have been framed. Their is a pervasive mental dishonesty in the system. Unless as a society the fundamentals are sorted out the society will reamin polarized.

Sent by Ravi Ayer | 6:05 AM ET | 11-17-2007

The B double P needs to follow up this segment on hyper partisanship in Washington with a comparison to the American populous.

Back in 2005 -- with a second edition in 2006 -- political scientists Morris P. Fiorina of Stanford, Samuel J. Abrams of Harvard, and Jeremy Pope of Brigham Young University wrote the book Culture war? : the myth of a polarized America which contests the notion that while the politically elite and ultra-active are polarized, the general public isn't polarized and uses opinion poll data to back up this assertion. Thus, the notion of Red State vs. Blue State is a mere myth.

Since their research is a couple of years old, I wonder if their assertion still holds. Further, how does the ultra-partisanship in Washington affect how the Average Joe or Jane feel about politics?

Sent by Steve Petersen | 4:45 PM ET | 11-17-2007

mmmmmmmm, good reference point mr. peterson. but if there were no melodramas and protagonists on the congressional stage would we all "just get along"...or would apathy become the leading cause of our demise. i don't know.

Sent by jan | 7:23 PM ET | 11-17-2007

Ugh!!! I hate leaving blog comments sometimes since I make silly mistakes.

When I wrote: "contests the notion that while the politically elite and ultra-active are polarized, the general public isn't polarized and uses opinion poll data to back up this assertion." I meant that the book asserts that the general public isn't polarized -- not the other way around...

Sent by Steve Petersen | 11:37 PM ET | 11-17-2007

One indication that Washington politics has gridlocked is the rise of activist state governments and regional coalitions of governors across the country dealing with issues that used to be almost exclusively federal issues like air & water pollution, CAFE standards for autos, and climate change.

It is interesting to see the federal government, particularly the legislature, marginalized by their own inability to come to consensus and act.

Sent by rick kennerly | 6:01 AM ET | 11-18-2007