Anyone who lived through the tragic September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks will remember the temporary spirit of bipartisanship that swept across the nation.

In the twilight of that horrible evening, members of Congress gathered on the steps of the United States Capitol and sang “God Bless America.” Citizens lined roads to cheer first responders. American flags sold out as families flew them in record numbers from front porches.

“Horror Knows No Party As Lawmakers Huddle,” declared The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

Crisis and catastrophe have historically elicited bipartisanship in American politics, a condition that is usually a welcome balm on the proverbial burn. But outside of those moments of tragedy, some politicians, especially during election season, like to encourage or call for common ground.

Assuming the best of intentions, it’s possible those who reach for or promote this ideal have a strong conviction that ideological consensus is good for the country. They’d be in good philosophical company.

Writing to Jonathan Jackson, a fellow patriot who served in the Massachusetts Congress, John Adams lamented:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

John Adams’ great fear has come true. But although the American two-party political system may be a frustration to many, that irritation won’t change anything.

In the meantime, though, largely setting aside moments of crisis, we should be extremely suspicious and careful when it comes to supporting bipartisan legislation these days.

That’s because the growing ideological divide has left very little room for legitimate common ground.

Bipartisan legislation regarding the sanctity of life? It’s non-existent. The exclusivity of one-man, one-woman marriage? Not anymore. Surely we can agree that men can’t pummel women in women’s sports?

If only. After all, we can’t even agree on the definition of a woman and a man – or whether there are just two genders.

Instead, calls for bipartisanship from radical legislators these days are usually calculating and subversive ploys designed to co-opt traditional language and ideas and convince voters they’re supporting or voting for one thing when it’s actually something else. Writing in 1984, George Orwell coined the term “Newspeak” to describe ambiguous language “to diminish the range of thought.”

Calls for bipartisanship today will almost always lead to either compromised morals, constitutional recklessness, fiscal irresponsibility, or an ideological vacuum where a lot of words say very little and mean even less.

It was William Shakespeare in The Tempest who wrote, “misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.”

As Christians, especially, we must resist any calls to compromise morals and values for the sake of ceremonial harmony that causes far more harm than good.

Image from Shutterstock.