Bipartisan bull

Updated below

Paul Krugman [behind subscription wall] shoots down all the bull about the need for bipartisanship that the Thuglicans and some of their Democratic enablers are now spewing across the media:

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that “politics has become so bitter and partisan” — which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower.

Update:

Hounddog in KC called to tell me it isn't clear why Dwight Eisenhower is portrayed as a villain here. I should explain that Krugman goes on to say the reason why we were able to have such a comfortable bipartisan government during Eisenhower's tenure was exactly because Roosevelt had had to fight tooth and nail to get the progressive agenda passed during his tenure. So, Krugman is not portraying Eisenhower as an ogre, simply as the beneficiary of the partisan fighting Roosevelt had had to engage in.