Admittedly, I’ve never been into the bi-partisan meme. Maybe it’s because I’m a labor movement person and the mission of the Republican party, and its allies, is to destroy the labor movement. But, I still remain mystified: why exactly, given the Republican party’s record, is the new Administration working so hard to win it over?

Two weeks after his selection as President-elect Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel met with Senate Republican leaders, gave out his cellphone number and personal email address — and promised to return any communication within 24 hours.

Testing the pledge, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl called him within days to talk about a few potential Cabinet nominees. Within 10 minutes, the two were talking. "They are getting off to a good start in terms of reaching out," said Sen. Kyl, an Arizona Republican.

That conversation — and dozens more since Mr. Obama’s election — are part of an extensive effort Mr. Obama has launched to woo Republicans. He hopes the effort will both ease the way for an aggressive, decidedly liberal policy blitz after he takes office, and establish terrain for a good working relationship in areas where the parties can find common ground. First up will be a half-trillion-dollar stimulus plan he hopes will win Republican votes.

"We are showing we’re not just going to lip synch this," Mr. Emanuel said in an interview this week.

And…

As part of the Obama outreach strategy, some of his closest campaign advisers have had to settle for lesser posts in the new administration as more experienced picks, reassuring to Republicans and independents, grabbed the spotlight. The president-elect has proved willing to rebuff liberal campaigns on behalf of certain Cabinet candidates, with most of his picks to date coming squarely from the ideological center.

And…

As one adviser put it, transition efforts are "trying to expand the political space" for Mr. Obama to pursue his agenda. That will mean creating coalitions of liberal and conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans and some conservatives whose interests coincide with the White House’s. With at least 58 Senate seats and a large majority in the House, Democrats have the numbers to move legislation on their own, Mr. Emanuel said. But at least at first, that isn’t Mr. Obama’s intent.

  There are a few things to consider here.

  First, I’m unclear why the goal isn’t, at this point, to destroy the Republican Party. There is a long list that one can make to justify an effort to obliterate Republicans for generations as a political player but this will do:

  *Virtually unanimous support for a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will cost U.S. taxpayers $2 trillion–maybe more.

  *A relentless attack, going back before this Administration, on civil liberties and civil rights: that would be everything from Guantanamo to gay rights.

  *Support, virtually unanimous, for an economic vision that wiped out trillions of dollars in wealth, impoverished millions of people here and abroad, imposed an idiotic and failed trade policy (so-called "free trade")

  I suppose one legitimate view is that the need to be bi-partisan is a reading of the public mood. Okay, that’s fair.

  But, another reading–my own personal one–is that a growing number of people are just fed up with the actual policies they’ve had to live with, particularly economic policies. Democratic majorities in the Congress and control over the White House came because of the gathering tidal wave of disgust over the war and, then, finally, the economic calamity just weeks before the election. And it must be said: some of the policies at the foundation of the foreign policy and economic disasters we now must fix were supported by some (too many) Democrats.

  If you read the mood in the way I do, then, it seems to me that the time is ripe not for "bi-partisanship" but for a much more clearly fought battle over two very different visions of the future. And an attempt to annihilate the opposition. I’m sorry–I’m not feeling charitable to a party that has carried on warfare, economic and real, on a lot of people.

  To be clear, if expanding the political space means getting the right things passed, that’s all fine and good. And if the president-elect’s approach is to try to bring on Republicans but, if they balk, to move ahead anyway with legislation basically intact, more power to him. And perhaps the president-elect is, as some have rationally argued, so politically adept that he will push a progressive agenda after giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with in opposition to what the people want.

  But, the question becomes: what do you trade off to get something passed?

  The stimulus plan is not the yardstick to use, in my humble opinion. The economy is in such a shambles that it’s now common wisdom that the accepted lowest figure for such a plan is $400-$500 billion (I personally think the number need to be one trillion dollars).

  For example, the Employee Free Choice Act. I’ve been a skeptic about the political calculations around EFCA for a long time. Not that an EFCA bill will pass. An EFCA bill will pass. The question is WHAT KIND of EFCA passes?

  Assuming this is a gimme in the House and President Obama signs it if it gets to his desk, the calculation has been: if the Democrats have 58 or 59 Senators, it will be easy to get one or more "moderate" Republicans to come on board to break a filibuster and bring the bill to a vote.

  BUT…there is a "little" problem in that calculation. It is not clear that Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, or Max Baucus–to name just three pro-business Dems–will simply support a meaningful EFCA with teeth that will make a difference for union organizing.

  Which brings us back to "bi-partisanship"–what compromises and deals will be made to win votes for EFCA?

  You can think of your own examples. The bottom line is: the crisis is so severe that we can’t afford to take half-measures or be less than bold in the name of "bi-partisanship".