The crux of your argument, as I see it, boils down to four points:
1) Both parties have been taken over by extremists.
2) Neither party will deal with the current mess on its own, opting instead to tackle conservative/liberal issues.
3) Partisanship gridlocks Congress and prevents it from taking action.
4) Pragmatism is the only solution.
If I have that right, then what’s the pragmatic solution to solve the entitlements crisis? Cut defense? Still go broke. Increase taxes? Kill the recovery. Phase out or restructure Social Security and Medicare? Now you’re in partisan territory. Reform them instead? Kick the can down the road.
As for liberty, both parties have shown themselves willing to trample civil rights when desired. How will compromise between them be any help? How will rubber-stamping appointments to federal agencies prevent those agencies from abusing their power? If both parties are scum, why remove their biggest obstacle by having them work together?
Compromise only works when everyone’s on the same page. Meet in the middle on a budget item. Take out the clause that makes people worry about civil rights. But if the options are vastly different, compromise means choosing a side. You can’t bail out the economy and cut spending at the same time. No matter the amount you spend or the amount you cut, one of the approaches is wrong. If pragmatism means picking the right one, it’s still a partisan decision. The only “compromise” is to do nothing, exactly what you’re arguing against. Even that isn’t viable when the status quo leads to failure.
You’re right in that elected officials from both parties have been doing an atrocious job of protecting liberty, putting checks on the government, and finding solutions to major problems, a trend that can only be fixed by a cultural shift in Washington. But on some issues there is no middle ground; a compromise is worse than gridlock. The pragmatism you’re seeking would lead to disaster.
The answer is to pick a side and clean it up. Push back against all the peripheral noise, deal with the major problems we all share, and stand strong in defense of your approach. Compromise only if the resulting plan will be a success, assuming you’ve picked correctly. You don’t have the luxury of hedging your bets, but that’s the nature of the problem. And as far as the neo-liberals and the Tea Partiers are concerned, making the parties take a side is the only way there’s a hope of reaching a solution. Pragmatism means taking a side.
