There's a lot of talk these days among politicians and elected officials about the importance of "bipartisanship" and "reaching across the aisles."
The idea is that if the nation is to improve the chances for sound government, recovery from current economic problems, balanced legislation, a realistic handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the selection of federal judges, the dangers of terrorism and many other extremely important matters, there needs to be a true bipartisan approach to addressing these current challenges.
It sounds good and it is a wise philosophy, but in many cases it is nothing but nice-sounding talk with little follow-through or execution.
Usually the individuals talking this way are the officeholders of the winning political party. This applies to state legislative bodies as well as in the U.S. Congress, in the state Capitol buildings and in the White House.
"Bipartisanship" in the minds of the politicians in the majority and victorious party really means "we'll explain and lay down how we intend to approach this particular matter. It would be nice if you agree to our plan. Otherwise, we have the votes to ram this through with or without your help."
This manner of "bipartisanship" applies to both Republicans and Democrats, whichever party is in power, at state and national levels. It's too bad examples of true bipartisanship are so rare as there is so much that could be accomplished if lawmakers, governors and presidents did indeed try to work for the overall best solution to an issue rather than playing hardball, raw politics.
Unfortunately, the name of the game these days in politics is "to the winner belongs the spoils" and "spoils" means whatever is in the best political interests of the reigning party.
History shows neither the Democrats nor Republicans have practiced true bipartisanship in legislative affairs.