“Bipartisan” is a terrible word.

Much like “sustainable,” “green,” “hope” or (especially) “change,” the word once had meaning. But after the buzz wears off the buzzwords, we’re in the midst of a hangover, left in that strange haze where we’re confused as to what actually occurred under the guidance of these verbal intoxicants.

The word “bipartisan” implies that there are two decisions, one inherently evil and the other good. It paints a picture of a government that is black and white, where there are winners and losers, where games are played and fingers are pointed.

This is not what government should be.

Regardless of whether you’re Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or tin-hat-wearing space pirate, the general consensus is that people do need to be governed, and governments have to spend money once in a while.

After living through two incredibly partisan Bush terms, America looked forward, hoping President Barack Obama could fix relations between the parties, and we’ve gotten upset when he has not lived up to these messianic expectations.

Honestly, though, did people really expect Obama to “reach across the aisle?” Is it really a terrible thing that he isn’t doing so? That, in an educated manner, he’s voting for what he believes?

Isn’t that freedom — for a person to have direct say in what his government says or does — what all of us really would like? Wouldn’t that be great?

Unsurprisingly, the GOP is not satisfied with Obama’s not-so-bipartisan first six weeks. And as Democratic as our new president is, the liberal Congress hasn’t helped his reputation.

An example is the economic stimulus package’s “Buy American” provision.

The provision is exactly what it sounds like: Any project that receives money from the stimulus bill has to buy American products to complete the task. It sounds good, and common sense says it should work … right?

The untested eye would say yes. But forcing purchase of American products actually hurts the American economy in two ways.

First, American goods may cost more than their foreign competitors’, which wastes government dollars on these projects, dollars that could have been spent stimulating the global economy, not just ours.

Second, foreign countries may retaliate by raising taxes or tariffs on other products, therefore raising input prices for U.S. companies and consumption prices on foreign-manufactured consumer goods, from
stereo equipment to children’s toys (unleaded, please).

Obama realized the consequences, which are usually conservative concerns, but the bill was passed with the inclusion anyway. Soon enough you will hear Republicans grumbling that Obama’s economic protectionism ruined chances for businesses to get out of the hole they are in, long forgetting that Congress had more say in this matter than did the president.

It turns out that to be bipartisan, you must act in a partisan fashion to begin with. President Obama, on the other hand, tried to accomplish something the Republicans would have enjoyed simply because he knew it was the right thing to do, not because he was being altruistic to a party who would have been ungrateful anyway.

Ryan is trying to give multipartisan thought a chance. Reach him at ryan.oneal@asu.edu.