Writing in 1993 about the failed Clinton health care fiasco, conservative political commentator George Will decried complex government endeavors built on slim majorities.  His premise, as I remember it, was that large-scale changes in government should be prefaced by a building of consensus rather than strong-armed though the legislature and foisted on an unwilling, or at least unconvinced, public.

Will's point has some merit:  a government undertaking that results in a deeply divided citizenry is a potential firestorm; see:  the Vietnam War for example.  So-called "wedge issues" can cut an electorate deeply, undercutting the notion that intelligent people can disagree on an issue and replacing it with a the idea that competitors are enemies instead of opponents.  Such a tone makes reconciliation difficult.

I would submit, however, that there are few things more worrisome than any act of government that has the word "bipartisan" in its description.  Consider as an example the current "economic stimulus" plan under consideration by Congress and being pushed by President Obama.  Pushing aside for the moment that last year Congress overwhelmingly (in a bipartisan manner) passed and President Bush signed over $700 billion in "stimulus" (aka "bailout") funds, in addition to the hundreds of billions that the Federal Reserve used to prop up banks and insurance companies (money used, among other things, for fat bonuses and spa visits), Obama and Congressional leaders are pushing for another $700-900 billion in funds to go to supposedly "shovel-ready" projects in an attempt to stimulate the economy.  Wanting to bring Congressional Republicans into the fold in supporting the endeavor, Obama has proposed including various tax cuts and other "pro-business" measures in the package.

The approach seems to be working, as news reports indicate that the legislation will likely garner fairly widespread government support.  Thus, the stimulus package (or, as new White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel prefers, "economic recovery package) will be considered a bipartisan endeavor, proof of our new President's willingness to reach across the aisle and collect bipartisan support.  The true result will be a federal budget deficit in 2009 likely not only to be of record size, but possibly twice as big as the previous record.  In return, we'll get more bridges and roads built (hopefully not to "nowhere"), and everyone from colleges and universities to state governments to beachfronts have their hands out ready for the bipartisan cash infusion.

So the likely result of the President's bipartisan approach is an additional $200-400 billion in additional national debt, along with the idea that the increase in government can't be pinned on the Democrats — hey, Republicans got in the act as well, so who are they to complain?  Instead of fighting the bill and perhaps turning public opinion at least against its most egregious expenditures, possibly even trimming down its mammoth size, the bill is now bipartisan and getting bigger and more expensive.  Of course, since government doesn't actually create the money it spends, that means more hard-earned income must be confiscated from the paychecks of working Americans to foot the bill.

Other examples abound.  The "bipartisan" Campaign Finance Reform (aka McCain-Feingold) expanded government control over our political speech and campaigns; the "bipartisan" No Child Left Behind greatly expanded government expenditures in and control over education.  The "bipartisan" S-CHIP program expanded government intrusion in health care by creating a new entitlement for the children.  The "bipartisan" Medicare Drug Program expanded government intrusion in health care by creating a new entitlement for elderly folks — everyone else now pays for their prescription drugs.

The moral of this story?  Whenever you hear the word "bipartisan" applied to a government act, hold on to your wallet and your liberties.  Rather than celebrating a spirit of "working together" in Washington, we should instead fear the tyrannical nature of bipartisanship.