Is "post-partisanism" possible?

This may sound crazy.

I don't think that "post-partisanism" is even a real ideological possibility in our current political climate.

Briefly, post-partisanism is the loosely defined phrase du jour that has been bandied about this political season. It applies in a rough sense to any politician or policy that makes an overt effort to cross partisan lines or re-frame political debates in a non-partisan manner. It seems clear why the term has been popular during this presidential cycle; both Senator Obama and Senator McCain claim to eschew partisan politics.

I am personally a huge fan of removing partisan vitriol from our national discourse. Partisan bickering and deeply entrenched ideology do nothing to solve the very real problems our nation faces. For example:

Ann Coulter constantly decries the "stupidity" of "the left." She spews venomous phrases that do nothing to address any actual problem that any actual person may face. Nevertheless, her hate makes its way into the bloodstream of American discourse and slowly poisons any attempt to reach out to the other side.

The germaine concept is polarization. Until very recently, individual U.S. citizens generally did not identify strongly with a particular party. For evidence of this, just check out the historical maps at 270 to win. Until the 1990s, it was very common for nearly the entire nation to vote for one candidate/party, then vote for a totally different candidate/party in the next cycle.

People felt free to vote for either party. Certainly there were ideologues and partisans; these have been the constant companions of democracy since before Plato wrote The Republic. but for the most part, Americans were politically fluid. If one party made a stronger case for their platform, that was by golly the way the people voted.

Our national discourse has become so polarized that most people have adopted "bunker mentalities" with regard to their politics. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you feel that you must support your party. We demonize the "other;" we blame them for everything that ails us. Conversely, we accuse "them" of lying about us.

The result is another term that has become popularized in political culture: cognitive dissonance. Essentially, cognitive dissonance is the ability to cherry-pick reality to fit your established paradigm. Cognitive dissonance has become the default operating condition for many politically aware Americans, and even those of us that attempt to avoid it can't always do so.

One consequence of all this is that it is increasingly difficult to convince anyone that a particular idea is valid on its own merits. Ideas are now filtered through our red- or blue-tinted lenses, subjected to ideological litmus tests, and then considered or rejected almost before they are truly considered.

The people have begun to notice this on a conscious level. The highly contested and divisive elections of 2000 and 2004 have brought ultra-partisanism to the forefront of the national consciousness. This year could have been different.

Actually, this year should have been different. Both major-party candidates stressed a desire to move "beyond partisanship," to end the bitterness that has marked the last 30 years of American politics. McCain presented the image of a "maverick," a Republican who would stand up to his party; Obama, the uniter from outside the beltway.

I believe that Sen. Obama has attempted to conduct his campaign in a post-partisan manner. However, the time may not be right. McCain, despite his wrods to the contrary, began launching viciously partisan attacks against Obama almost immediately following his presumptive clinching of the Democratic nomination. Unwilling to subject himself to the treatment that John Kerry received four years ago, Obama has had to take the gloves off in return.

But therein lies my point: it takes two to tango. One side cannot undo all the hate, the poisonous rhetoric, by itself. Both sides will have to make an effort.