Though we may have thought it impossible that it could, and the development may not bode well for our ability to govern ourselves effectively.
From Ronald Brownstein:
America is steadily moving away from the ramshackle coalitions that historically defined our parties and toward a quasi-parliamentary system that demands lockstep partisan loyalty. It is revealing that Obama is facing nearly unanimous Republican opposition on health care just four years after President Bush couldn't persuade a single congressional Democrat to back his comparably ambitious Social Security restructuring.
In this emerging parliamentary system, legislators face enveloping pressure to stand with their side against the other on every major issue. Tellingly, Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee's protracted negotiations, both confronted whispers that they might lose their leadership positions if they conceded too much to the other side. . .
Compounding the pressure has been the development of partisan communications networks -- led by liberal blogs and conservative talk radio -- that relentlessly incite each party's base against the other. Those constant fusillades help explain why presidents now face lopsided disapproval from the opposition party's voters more quickly than ever -- a trend that discourages that party's legislators from working with the White House.
. . . .
Party-line governing is intrinsically flawed. Any bill that must pass solely with votes from the majority party can't realistically incorporate ideas that divide the party. And that fact of life rules out half the tools in our policy toolbox. Though medical-malpractice reform would advance Obama's cost-control goals, for instance, it's impractical to include it in legislation that must pass solely with Democratic votes. Legislation is more balanced when both parties shape it.
