"Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong."

That quote might have come from President-elect Barack Obama, the leading advocate of "post-partisan" politics, but it didn't.

It came from Richard Armour, a professor and professional wit, who wrote it many decades ago. Obviously, nobody was listening to him.

Policy above party has never worked on domestic policy matters in the United States and only occasionally in foreign policy. The reason is found in a political bromide even older that Armour's quote.

It goes this way. There are two political parties in this country, the "ins" and the "outs." The "outs" want to get in and the "ins" want to stay in.

The majority party wants to enact its program, and the minority party sees its best chance in the next election comes from opposing that program.

When parties share power and have this mindset, nothing much happens. Right after the 2006 elections, President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exchanged solemn pledges of partnership instead of partisanship, but it is difficult to find any examples of this pledge having been kept in the last two years.

Last summer, some Republican senators worked with their Democratic colleagues on an energy policy compromise. According to Roll Call, a Washington insider newspaper, the GOP Senate leaders were unhappy because "they fear they might have lost their edge on the energy issue...."

In other words, bipartisan progress toward a joint policy was not desirable simply because it might eliminate the differences between the "ins" and the "outs."

The problem cuts the other way as well. The majority, so impressed by its electoral triumph, may believe it has a mandate from the people to pursue its policies and to simply to roll over the opposition.

These days, conservative pundits on Fox television fear that the Democrats will run wild and not listen to the superior wisdom coming from across the aisle. Some Democrats must remember when, under Republican control, bills came out of congressional committee meetings from which they had been excluded.

Even more worrisome is the level of opposition from some on this year's losing side. Georgia Republican congressman Paul Broun has said that President-elect Obama has the "potential" to be like Hitler. Broun imagines that Obama wants a national security force with police powers and will ban all guns.

Not very post-partisan.

On Monday, the Bush administration announced a rule extending the right of health-care workers to decline to provide services they find morally unacceptable. This undermines access to contraception and abortions. The Bush White House knows that the Obama administration will reverse the rule when it takes office. Instead of post-partisanship, this move was designed purely to draw a line between one president and the next, one party and the other.

Politicians seem determined to ignore clear public sentiment favoring cooperation and opposing excessive bickering. Policy debates still retain the character of a political campaign or a sporting event, where what matters is scoring political points. The media is always standing by to chronicle such conflicts. The outlook for improvement remains uncertain.

Yet there may be some hope. A group of senators from both parties agreed on how to handle judicial nominations by the president, when the process threatened to grind to a halt. Both Maine senators participated in that group. We need more of the same.

Much depends on President-elect Obama. He needs to shape policies that take account of competing and even opposing positions, if he is to be truly post-partisan.

That will be difficult. Like most presidents, Obama will enjoy his greatest clout during his first year in office. He may find it necessary to use his political strength to bring about quickly many of the changes he promised, leaving him little time or room to compromise.

So a post-partisan era, at least in Washington, remains in doubt.

In Augusta, the new GOP leaders in the Senate, where their party is in the minority, were supposedly chosen because they favor a moderate and cooperative approach. Kevin Raye, the new minority leader, promises to look for "consensus" with the Democrats.

Maine Senate Republicans say they want to participate in developing proposals and not simply be asked to support Democratic positions when they come to a vote.

If the majority Democrats open the door to that kind of cooperation, perhaps Maine could accomplish what Washington promises and, incidentally, what the people want.

Gordon L. Weil has written books and articles on economic, governmental and historical subjects. He served in international, U.S., and Maine government positions and is a long-time energy consultant and publisher.