More on Bi-partisanship

Great post here from Salon.com:

"Bipartisanship" has long been, and continues to be, a deceitful fig leaf to demand enactment of Republican policies even when Americans overwhelmingly oppose those policies.  Just look at what two of the other participants in that NYT discussion yesterday mean when they call for "bipartisanship" from Obama:  they mean that Obama should enact classic Republican policies.

The whole post is great and  argues that Americans voted for Democratic policies not Republican and that the talk of bi-partisanship is merely manipulative self-serving rhetoric from the media.

So....

1. Does this mean that the bulk of America doesn't know what's best for them and that they should be open to inclusion of Republican policies on the basis of  'bi-partisanship'? (This would seem to be the Integral position)

2. Or, is the notion of bi-partisanship flawed in terms of actual realities? Is 'bi-partisanship' really just a useful term for manipulative rhetoric.

You might guess I favor 2. How this relates to Integral/Spiritual practice in my mind is the need to be very careful to ground our terms and concepts in what is actually going on. I want more examples that traverse the grit of the actual to find an Integral poise amidst it all.

Looking at what is actually going on, along with self coiling, self scrutiny: when all the crap is left aside that's spirit in action. Of course, the belief that a bit of scrutiny  leaves all the crap behind is also deluded. What if we're all deeply compromised and corrupt and, at the same time, well meaning and full of love. Practice then becomes negotiating the always already existence of these two forces. All the way up and down - they never disappear.  Radical skepticism and love riding on observation.

Not that I'm providing any real examples. I'm as full of it as anyone ;) Unless, I make that claim that Greenwald is more Integral than I-I...