The final question at yesterday's White House press conference asked President Obama to respond to the "truism" that he doesn't "socialize enough."

Obama said he gets along well on a personal level with his rivals, including House Speaker John Boehner, but, "I think that really what's gone on in terms of some of the paralysis here in Washington, or difficulties in negotiations, just have to do with some very stark differences in terms of policy, some very sharp differences in terms of where we stand on issues."

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank isn't buying it.

It's tempting to wonder whether Obama could achieve more if he could establish personal connections with Republicans on Capitol Hill. [...]

"I like a good party," the president informed her after attesting to his "friendly guy" status. "Really what's gone on in terms of some of the paralysis here in Washington, or difficulties in negotiations, just have to do with some very stark differences in terms of policy."

That may be true, but until recent years, sharp disagreements were smoothed by personal ties.

Yes, and until recent years, we had two major, mainstream political parties, both of which had fringe elements, but neither of which had been radicalized.

And then things changed, at which point the efficacy of "smoothing sharp disagreements" through "personal ties" ended.

I liked Kevin Drum's take on this.

I continue to wonder what it will take to put a stake through the heart of this hoary Beltway meme. It's true that Obama isn't the schmooziest president in history, but how much evidence do you need to convince yourself that schmooziness simply isn't the problem here? ... Over the last four years, one thing has become crystal clear: the mere fact that Obama supports something almost guarantees united Republican opposition. Schmoozing doesn't matter. Golf dates don't matter. Invites to the White House bowling alley don't matter. Milbank implicitly admits as much, and yet he's still "tempted" to think that Obama could smooth things over if only he'd hoist a few more beers with Eric Cantor. After all, that kind of thing used to work.

This is magical thinking. The reason it doesn't work anymore isn't because Obama is insular. It doesn't work because the Republican Party has become a party of zealots. What does it take for DC columnists to finally admit that?

That last question need not be rhetorical. Over the last year or so, Ron Fournier, Jon Meacham, David Brooks, and Bob Woodward have all made the same argument: if Obama was better at "schmoozing," the breakdown in Washington policymaking would be less severe. Now, Milbank has joined the club.

The establishment can keep repeating the argument, but it won't improve with repetition.

As reader F.B. recently reminded me, the congressional GOP "has transformed itself from a loosely disciplined congressional party, to an almost lock-step parliamentary party. Add the effects of gerrymandering, subtract the lubrication of earmarks, and we end up with the present gridlock."

I know we just discussed this in detail last week, but it's worth reemphasizing that interpersonal outreach doesn't work because Republicans have reached an ideological extreme unseen in modern American history. It's a quantifiable observation, not a subjective one. Even if GOP policymakers were inclined to work with Obama, they realize that they'd be punished soon after by a primary challenge -- and they know this to be true because it's happened more than a few times in recent years (look up names like Crist, Specter, Bennett, Lugar, etc.).

Let's return to the thesis presented earlier this year by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein: "[W]e have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party."

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

"Until recent years, sharp disagreements were smoothed by personal ties"? Perhaps, but until recent years, presidents didn't have to deal with an entire political party that, statistically speaking, is the most ideologically extreme since the dawn of the modern American party system.

Obama has frequently adopted GOP measures as his own, in the hopes of advancing bipartisanship, only to find Republicans opposing their own proposals. Indeed, just last week, the president nominated a Republican for a top post in his cabinet, and the fiercest opposition is coming from -- you guessed it -- the GOP.

This isn't the kind of problem that can be remedied with backslapping and friendly chats.

As I've argued before, the notion that schmoozing will lead to progress rests upon the assumption that congressional Republicans are responsible officials, willing to negotiate and work in good faith, and prepared to find common ground with Obama. All they need is some face-time and presidential hand-holding. Once they can get along on a personal level, a constructive process will follow.

It's a pleasant enough fantasy, and I wish it were true, but everything we've seen over the last four years points to the limits of schmoozing. GOP leaders respond to unyielding primary voters, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, not interpersonal outreach from a president they've tried to undermine at every turn.

Official White House Photo

President Obama shares a drink with Joe Biden, John Boehner, John Kasich after playing a round of golf in June 2011.

Ron Fournier has some advice for President Obama: to have a "great presidency," he's going to have to get better at "schmoozing."

For Obama, learning how to schmooze could mean the difference between a good and great presidency. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (to name just a few) were masters at building relationships that furthered their political aims. They dined and drank with lawmakers, and they ventured to Capitol Hill out of respect. Johnson was an aggressive phone-caller. Roosevelt mixed cocktails for guests. Clinton flattered House Speaker Newt Gingrich. [...]

At the start of his second term, one wonders less about Obama's fitness than his willingness: Why doesn't he do more to build and maintain the relationships required to govern in era of polarization?

If this advice sounds familiar, it's because Fournier is on well-trodden ground -- Jon Meacham, David Brooks, and Bob Woodward have all urged Obama to celebrate the efficacy of schmoozing. Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) has advised, "The president's got to start inviting people over for dinner. He's got to play golf with them. He has to pick up the phone and call and say, 'I know we disagree on this, but I just want to say -- I heard it was your wife's birthday or your kid just got into college.' He has to go build friendships."

What I find troubling about this advice isn't the repetition, but rather, the partisan realities that make the suggestion useless.

At a certain level, I can appreciate why the media establishment finds the guidance compelling -- Fournier, Meacham, Brooks, Woodward, et al, have been around Washington long enough to have seen plenty of presidents in both parties find success by cultivating personal relationships with would-be rivals. Under the norms of American politics, this model makes sense. I'll gladly concede there have been times at which lawmakers were on the fence before a big vote, and a president could gently apply pressure with a White House dinner invitation and an after-meal chat on the Truman balcony.

But the advice is predicated on a faulty assumption: that one of the major parties hasn't been radicalized and that the old rules still apply.

We've discussed this before, but since the argument is still kicking around, let's recap why schmoozing isn't the solution.

First, let's note that Obama has invested some effort in this. The president has used events like the Super Bowl and March Madness to invite bipartisan groups of lawmakers over to hang out, hoping to develop a rapport. In May 2011, Obama invited a bipartisan group to the White House, not for a meeting or policy negotiations, but as part of "a get-to-know-you effort in the spirit of bipartisanship and collegiality." Republicans accepted the invitation -- and soon after launched the debt-ceiling crisis, threatening to hurt the nation on purpose unless Obama met non-negotiable demands.

So much for schmoozing.

And why doesn't interpersonal outreach work? I suspect it's because Republicans have reached an ideological extreme unseen in modern American history. It's a quantifiable observation, not a subjective one. Even if GOP policymakers were inclined to work with Obama, they realize that they'd be punished soon after by a primary challenge -- and they know this to be true because it's happened more than a few times in recent years (look up names like Crist, Specter, Bennett, Lugar, etc.).

Let's return to the thesis presented earlier this year by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein: "[W]e have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party."

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

This morning, Fournier argued, in defense of his thesis, that "every president" has had to deal with "extremists." That's true. But every president hasn't had to deal with an entire political party that, statistically speaking, is the most ideologically extreme since the dawn of the modern American party system.

What's more, note how this extremism manifests itself in practical terms. John Boehner has declared in recent years, "This is not a time for compromise," and "I reject the word" compromise. Mitch McConnell has said several times that defeating President Obama, not helping Americans, his top "priority," and that he deliberately refused to consider bipartisan proposals, even ones that he liked and approved of, in order to advance his larger partisan cause.

For his part, Obama has frequently adopted GOP measures as his own, in the hopes of advancing bipartisanship, only to find Republicans opposing their own proposals. Indeed, just this week, the president nominated a Republican for a top post in his cabinet, and the fiercest opposition is coming from -- you guessed it -- the GOP.

This isn't the kind of problem that can be remedied with backslapping and friendly chats.

As I've argued before, the notion that schmoozing will lead to progress rests upon the assumption that congressional Republicans are responsible officials, willing to negotiate and work in good faith, and prepared to find common ground with Obama. All they need is some face-time and presidential hand-holding. Once they can get along on a personal level, a constructive process will follow.

It's a pleasant enough fantasy, and I wish it were true, but everything we've seen over the last four years points to the limits of schmoozing. GOP leaders respond to unyielding primary voters, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, not interpersonal outreach from a president they've tried to undermine at every turn.

Getty Images

Lieberman is always pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

As Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) gets ready to depart the Senate after four terms, he's leaving on a predictable note: blaming "both sides" for everything.

Even amid the current meltdown in Washington and the consistent Republican opposition to Mr. Obama, Mr. Lieberman insists on blaming both parties equally in a way that some Democrats say works for him but ignores reality.

"The Republicans will say not only in the fiscal negotiations, but in general, they were constantly bending and willing to compromise, and it's the Democrats' fault," he said. "But the truth is, they're both right. It's both their fault."

That's not "the truth" at all. To pretend that there should be a pox on both houses, when only one deserves, is to deny reality altogether.

I understand the reflexive establishment posture, which suggests partisan observations are necessarily wrong, but consider recent events: the fiscal talks have broken down because Republicans won't compromise and accept meaningful concessions; the farm bill and the Violence Against Women Act are stuck because Republicans won't vote on them; efforts to reduce gun violence face extremely long odds because Republicans are beholden to the NRA; a U.N. treaty on disabilities was killed because Republicans believed extremist conspiracy theories; the process of filling President Obama's second term cabinet is stalled because of Republican smear campaigns; and another debt-ceiling crisis is underway because Republicans are threatening to hurt Americans on purpose unless Democrats pay a steep ransom.

It's not "both their fault." One side is being reasonable; the other side is being nihilistic. One need not be partisan or biased to see what is plainly true.

And yet, there's Joe Lieberman, who's in a position to know better, characterizing partisan strife as a "cancer" affecting both sides of the aisle equally. This is more than just annoying -- it's a misguided sentiment that encourages more dysfunction.

I'm reminded once again of this thesis from Thomas Mann and Norm Orstein.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

Keep this in mind, not only when Lieberman whines, but when we see efforts like Starbucks' "come together" initiative. As Jonathan Cohn explained very well this morning, "Washington doesn't need two parties that can 'come together.' It needs one party to 'get it together.'"

There was quite a bit of discussion on the Sunday shows yesterday as to why there's so little compromise and even less constructive, bipartisan policymaking in Washington. Doris Kearns Goodwin blamed the role of money in politics, while Bob Woodward blamed President Obama's lack of schmoozing. Soon after, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) blamed the media, while the Associated Press blamed the
scarcity of moderates.

There is a more plausible explanation. Maybe this is a good time to reflect again on the thesis presented earlier this year by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein: "[W]e have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party."

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

The point is not that money, interpersonal conflicts, and the media and public discourse are irrelevant, but rather, they're all peripheral concerns that overlook the root problem: constructive, bipartisan policymaking in Washington is impossible when there's a radicalized major party that doesn't believe in compromise -- and they have the power necessary to exert their will.

It's not as if GOP leaders have been bashful on this point.

John Boehner himself has declared in recent years, "This is not a time for compromise," and "I reject the word" compromise. Mitch McConnell has said several times that defeating President Obama, not helping Americans, his top "priority," and that he deliberately refused to consider bipartisan proposals, even ones that he liked and approved of, in order to advance his larger partisan cause.

For his part, Obama has frequently adopted GOP measures as his own, in the hopes of advancing bipartisanship, only to find Republicans opposing their own proposals.

Remind me: why, exactly, does the political establishment consider dysfunction and acrimony a mystery?

After all the complaining I've done about the media ignoring Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein of late, it's only fair to note that the two respected political scientists finally got some must-see airtime on a Sunday show over the weekend. The fine folks at "Up With Chris Hayes" welcomed the scholars to the show yesterday for three -- count em', one, two, three -- segments on the program.

For those looking for a quick refresher, Mann and Ornstein -- celebrated and respected figures of the Washington establishment -- recently argued in an impressive op-ed, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem." It's part of a thesis explored in their new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Seems," and by all appearances, it's the kind of argument that should spur some debate within the political establishment. By and large, the opposite has happened.

For Mann and Ornstein, blaming "both sides" for what ails Washington is no longer accurate, and only exacerbates the problems posed by the radicalization of today's Republican Party. "When one party moves this far from the mainstream," they argued, "it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

Mann and Ornstein added in print, "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

It's the kind of provocative argument that warrants serious national debate, but which has instead been met with silence from the establishment.

On the air with Chris yesterday, the two were able to elaborate on the thesis, and the segments are definitely worth your time.

Remember, Mann and Ornstein aren't just two random political scientists with a striking book and op-ed. Mann and Ornstein enjoy almost unparalleled credibility with the Beltway establishment, and are generally accepted as centrist observers, not ideologues or partisan bomb-throwers. For years, these two have been cited constantly as objective experts.

That is, until they decided to drop the "both sides are always to blame" canard, at which point, their phones stopped ringing. It's as if these two broke an unwritten rule, and the Sunday shows that used to keep Mann and Ornstein on speed dial decided their respected insights were no longer welcome.

I fear this will serve as an example that sends a message to the larger political world: no matter how credible you are, if you accurately hold Republicans responsible for their misconduct, without blaming Democrats with equal force, you'll be shunned.

Political scientists Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein -- celebrated and respected figures of the Washington establishment -- recently argued in an impressive op-ed, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem." It seemed like the kind of piece that would spur some debate within the political establishment. That hasn't quite happened.

For Mann and Ornstein, blaming "both sides" for what ails Washington is no longer accurate, and only exacerbates the problems posed by the radicalization of today's Republican Party. "When one party moves this far from the mainstream," they argued, "it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

Mann and Ornstein added, "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

It's a rarely-seen thesis, which seemed likely to generate widespread discussion. But Media Matters prepared a fascinating report on the ways in which the Mann/Ornstein argument "has been largely ignored, with the top five national newspapers writing a total of zero news articles on their thesis." The report included this chart:

Media Matters

Remember, Mann and Ornstein aren't just two random political scientists with a provocative op-ed. Mann and Ornstein enjoy almost unparalleled credibility with the Beltway establishment, and are generally accepted as centrist observers, not ideologues or partisan bomb-throwers. For years, these two have been quoted constantly as objective experts.

This context matters. When Paul Krugman or Eugene Robinson says the radicalization of the Republican Party drives the dysfunction of our politics in the 21st century, they're correct, but the impact of perspective is limited. When Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, present the same argument, it carries added weight because of their reputation as non-partisan, apolitical observers.

Or at least, it's supposed to.

So, what's the problem? Why are Mann and Ornstein missing from the major Sunday shows? Where's the debate? There are competing explanations for this, though I continue to think much of this is the result of "rules" that dominate much of the establishment's discourse.

As we discussed a month ago, when it comes to the establishment discussing what ails the American system, the rules dictate that "both sides" are always to blame for everything in all instances. Even if reality clearly shows one party more responsible than the other, no one's allowed to say so -- to assign responsibility to those who deserve it is to be biased and irresponsible.

And these two violated the rules.

Worse, they chastised those who wrote the rules:

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

If the right or establishment types disagree, fine, but let's at least have the debate, rather than pretending the Mann/Ornstein thesis was unimportant and never published.