Bipartisanship

How many times have you seen this ugly word rear its head?

"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."

"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."

Blah blah blah.

This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.

Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.

For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:

"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."

Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.

"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."

If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?