There are, of course, some refreshing counter-examples. In fact, Obama may be one of them (look at his recent close cooperation with Sen. Lugar, and his latest collaboration with Chuck Hagel). McCain certainly has been in the past. I worry that he’s in an impossible bind in this election, where he stands to lose credibility with constituencies he needs whether he continues to play the maverick, or buckles down to the administration’s party line. But whatever the outcome of this election, the problem is not going to be solved by one person, even the President of the United States.

The key is to build on a few successful models in which bipartisan consensus has led to meaningful action, and restore a basic assumption of meaningful bipartisan dialog and consensus building to our decision making process. It’s not going to be possible, or even necessarily salutary, in every policy area. But in national security, the other option is to risk crisis and catastrophe. America simply is not strong enough to defeat the myriad threats of a dangerous world while expending most of our political energy fighting one another.

Though hard to embrace fully in the face of the divisive politics of an election year, this statement is profoundly true at both an idealistic and pragmatic level. To be sure, we need argument. According to Madison, this country will only thrive off of such a preponderance of varied opinions that none will accede to dominance. In this sense, factionalization is a foundational element of American democracy.

However, we would be naïve to think that our founders desired this type of dehumanizing, static divisiveness. It would be a stretch to say that the author of the Federalist papers gladly anticipated attacks on the patriotism of political rivals. In short, America does well by itself and its democratic ideals to always question and always debate – but not to besmirch character by default.

But let us ignore idealism and focus on that which is solely practical. Still, Barack Obama would be wise to distance himself from jabs at John McCain’s war record (just as McCain would be smart in avoiding any dubious allusions to Obama’s race, “secret” religious identity, or patriotism). Only through meaningful dialogue – with as many participants as possible, regardless of political leaning – do we arrive at the sturdiest, most tested solutions. Bipartisanship can be much more than an ideal; it is often the quickest way to determine what is best for our entire country, the most efficient way to govern, and the surest manner in which to evade partisan groupthink.

It’s not a terribly novel idea. PSA cites the relationship between President Truman and Sen. Vandenburg and the cooperative climate that fostered the Marshall Plan. Today, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank and Republic Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have worked together – diligently, cordially – to enact several important housing bills during the current crisis. Though President Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill fought vehemently by day, they engaged each other collegially and on a personal level “after 5PM.”

Perhaps, though, now our leaders need something more inclusive and more human than “5PM” friends. This type of relationship starts with the parties’ respective leaders, and only grows if personal, character-based attacks take a backseat to issue-based debate and, at best, earnest dialogue.