By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Amy Klobuchar’s recent statement advocating for bipartisan cooperation with the Trump administration sparked immediate backlash from online progressives. Critics argued that finding “common ground” with fascists is unacceptable and that the Democratic Party should prioritize resisting the Trump administration’s actions. Klobuchar’s assertion followed a call from several Democratic governors for stronger opposition to the Trump administration. However, Klobuchar later clarified her stance, emphasizing the need to fight illegal actions while also proposing a positive agenda to regain support.
Read the original article here
Senator Klobuchar’s recent call for bipartisanship has ignited a firestorm of criticism from progressive circles, with many arguing that there is simply no common ground to be found with fascists. The sentiment echoes across numerous online discussions, where the idea of compromise with the current political climate is viewed as not only naive but also deeply dangerous.
The core argument against bipartisanship rests on the belief that the current political climate is not one of differing opinions on policy, but a battle against a fundamentally anti-democratic force. The belief is that those who would dismantle democratic institutions, actively seek to undermine the rule of law and spread misinformation cannot, and should not, be engaged in good-faith negotiation.
Many feel that attempts at “unity” in this context are not only futile but actively harmful. They believe that such calls for bipartisanship serve to normalize and legitimize extremism, thereby empowering those who wish to do the country harm. The argument is that engaging in negotiations with those who fundamentally reject democratic norms allows them to continue their actions without meaningful consequences. This, in turn, only emboldens them.
The analogy of an abusive relationship is frequently used to illustrate this point. The idea is that seeking compromise with those who are actively harming a system or society is like attempting to appease an abuser. It’s seen as a fundamentally flawed strategy that only serves to allow the abuse to continue. Attempting to find a “middle ground” is considered akin to enabling the destructive behavior.
This frustration is amplified by a sense of deep political disillusionment. Years of perceived failures by the Democratic party to effectively counter the rise of right-wing extremism, coupled with what some see as a consistent unwillingness to aggressively challenge and confront extremist rhetoric and actions, has left many feeling betrayed and deeply cynical. There’s a prevailing belief that a more forceful, combative approach is necessary to protect democratic values.
This critique extends beyond just policy differences; it strikes at the very heart of what many consider the fundamental nature of the current political conflict. The feeling is that the challenge isn’t about finding solutions through compromise, but about protecting democracy itself from those actively seeking to dismantle it. This perspective views bipartisanship as not only ineffective but also morally wrong given the stakes.
The anger directed at Senator Klobuchar and others advocating for bipartisanship stems from a perceived lack of understanding of the severity of the situation. There’s a sense that those promoting compromise are either willfully blind to the threat posed by these groups or are prioritizing political expediency over the preservation of democratic principles. This has led to calls for a complete shift in strategy within the Democratic party itself. The proposed solutions often involve replacing older, more moderate figures with those who are seen as more willing to engage in a direct and uncompromising fight against extremism.
Underlying these critiques is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of political discourse in this particular moment. Some believe that engaging in a direct confrontation with those seen as actively undermining democracy is not only necessary, but that to do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty to the country. The idea of “compromising with evil” is rejected as not only strategically unsound but also morally reprehensible.
Ultimately, the criticism of Senator Klobuchar’s call for bipartisanship highlights a deep and fundamental divide within the Democratic party, and broader American politics, about the appropriate response to the rise of extremism and the perceived threat to democracy. The call for unity is viewed by many progressives as not only tone-deaf but dangerous, a sentiment fueled by a history of perceived political failures and a belief that compromise with fascism is simply not possible.