Yesterday, I wrote about the incoherence of the claim that a monolithic “uniparty” rules the United States. There are, of course, quite a few areas where the parties have irreconcilable disagreements.
But here’s an additional question worth asking that I left mostly unaddressed: What distinguishes unacceptable acts of the “uniparty” from acceptable acts of bipartisanship? Why are conservatives so quick to fashion Ukraine aid as an act of the “uniparty” not willing to make the same claim about aid to Israel? Should one oppose all acts of bipartisanship for fear of “uniparty” shenanigans?
The question furthers my point about the use of the term “uniparty” itself. Rather than referring to a clearly delineated set of unacceptable processes by which the two parties coordinate, “uniparty” is mostly used in the context of denouncing a policy outcome that one personally opposes. In other words, it’s “bipartisanship” when you like the outcome, and a “uniparty conspiracy” when you don’t.
I made the case that there is no real “uniparty.” But if you disagree, please explain exactly how one determines which acts of bipartisanship are okay and which ones are prima facie evidence of the nefarious collusion that “uniparty” conspiracists are so quick to assume.