Aside from Rush Limbaugh, no one really wants the president of the United States to fail, whether or not one agrees with his positions. Five, 10, or 15 years down the line, it would be more than unfortunate if the greatest legacy of Obama and his administration were failed attempts at bipartisanship in place of important and historical bills.
Obama is currently in the position of passing some of the most significant liberal legislation since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the Social Security Act as passed by Lyndon B. Johnson. He needs to move past gestures at merely shallow bipartisanship and pursue the platform he was elected upon.
Mere weeks after the proposed health care bill managed to escape death at the hands of a filibuster, Obama announced plans for a bipartisan conference on the same piece of legislation, to be televised in line with his policy on administrative transparency. What does such a gesture mean, though, when the two parties are so pitted against each other that no progress can be made without a supermajority? When filibusters are used not to advance discussion but to impede, there is a pretty clear indication that the minority party isn't interested in bipartisanship, either.
Republicans have argued that Obama's ambitious and accelerated first-year agenda—health care reform, the stimulus package, an increase in troops in Afghanistan—has prevented conservative leadership in both parties in Congress from participating equally in legislative activities, thus leading to a new brand of partisanship. This is, of course, after Obama ceased supporting the public option and made an effort to meet individually with Republican senators and representatives, including Maine Senator Olympia Snowe.
Let's remember that the very existence of a two-party system in the United States necessitates polarization, and that bipartisanship is worthless if it means compromise prevents any sort of meaningful progress and legislation from either side of the aisle. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that bipartisanship works both ways: since virtually the first day of the Obama administration, Republicans have played victim and acted as if the president hadn't actually pledged to work closely with conservative leaders. The funny thing is, for such a promise to work, the other party has to be equally willing to compromise.
Obama was legitimately elected to the office of president of the United States—the same cannot be said for Bush's first term, during which time he plunged the country into an expensive, unnecessary war—and his current policies represent, more or less, the platform on which he campaigned. In fact, if anything, he has shifted more toward the center that his initial political strategy would have suggested. Logically then, the constituents who elected both him and the Democratic majority in Congress were fully aware of his desire to embrace the tenets of both social and fiscal liberalism.
Multiple polls since the election have indicated continued strong support for a public option with or without bipartisan support from Republican senators and representatives. Here's the playing field so far: the majority wants it. The people—the constituents, the citizens, the people whose voices are meant to be represented by those in Congress—want it. And still we're supposed to compromise on that?
It is easy to forget, in the face of vacillation from the legislative and executive branches, that both parties want the same things for the country as a whole. The Republicans have attempted to stymie any attempts at progress put forth by Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress; when the president then attempts to reach out to Republicans, through such means as the aforementioned health care summit and personal meetings with members of Congress, he is accused of inaction.
David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager during the 2008 presidential election, has argued that the Democrats stand to lose much more politically if the health care bill drowns amid floundering, failed attempts at bipartisanship. Obama and Democratic members of Congress risk alienating their base along with those who align themselves further to the right. More importantly, however, Obama risks wasting at least four years of time at the very moment the people of the United States need a strong, determined leader committed to American progress.