Krugman: Right now, bipartisanship would be a "corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions"

What some call shrill, others call being reasonable to a fault. I'm in the latter group with Paul Krugman's latest column.

I'd love to quote the whole thing, since it contains a great take-down of the Heritage Foundation and the mainstream media's susceptibility to wonk-pretending nonsense. (Sample: "[T]he two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes, with Republicans in particular having a stable of supposed experts who reliably endorse whatever they propose.")

Instead I'll just leave you with the close (my emphasis):

Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.

This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.

This is not at all about Obama and what he might do; nor is it really about Paul Ryan's known "joke of a plan". It's about the Professor, calling it right. Bipartisanship at this point would be both "corrupt" and "undemocratic" for all the reasons stated in the column.

GP