I've had my differences with Jonathan Chait in the past, but I like the sentiment of his column from this weekend, "No, we can't all just get along.

Chait picks up on a thread lots of bloggers (in particular, Atrios) have picked on: There is almost a mania for the idea of bipartisan love and harmony. Anyone interested in making a point or actually differentiate his or her campaign is seen as divisive or worse yet rude. To me, it smacks of banality masquerading as comity. Our greatest diplomats and statesmen have always been able to make their point -- even do so forcefully -- without inviting howls of contempt from middle-of-the-road fussbudgets in the editorial pages.

Chait argues that the current nostalgia for America's bipartisan past is merely a symptom of withdrawal from an addiction to a relatively short period of time when the actual interests of the two parties in power aligned. It seemed then like a golden age of cross-party love had dawned, and now we are tossing that harmony in the trash bin. But in fact, Chait says, one of the parties decided its interests weren't actually aligned with the other and kicked off the current round of partisanship -- to great electoral success, incidentally.

It is for this reason that there seems to be a distinctly partisan bent to many of those casting aspersions on romantic notions of political accord. The desire for partisan amicability is used as a club to punish the party no longer in agreement. The drive for bipartisanship becomes a wedge issue in itself, to be employed expertly as any other, for political gain.

I recognize this but don't see it as the main reason to oppose blind devotion to political amity. To me, change is born in conflict -- not violence, but defined difference as a starting point for negotiation, or defined difference to clearly outline a brave defense of a deeply-held belief. Some would argue this is a statement in support of "politics as usual." I disagree. But regardless of my party affiliation, I believe we have parties for a reason. I wouldn't wish to be a member of a party that didn't understand that.