Anyone who even casually follows happenings in Washington, D.C., these days cannot help but notice the stark partisan divide our country faces. And when that chasm is bridged, even briefly, as in the joint singing of “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps after the 9/11 attacks, even the strongest skeptics welcome the detente.

A recent edition of The New York Times featured a story with an unusual title for the reliably left-leaning Old Grey Lady: “The Necessity of Bipartisanship.”

The context was a hotly debated and highly anticipated vote on the $95 billion foreign aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Despite 112 Republicans voting “no” on the legislation, it passed in the House, and later in the Senate. But I would only ask the Times: If its staff cares so much about bipartisanship, why do they spend so much time stirring up the dissension?

The Times’ interest in bipartisanship only when its editors favor it for a particular issue notwithstanding, tensions inside a deeply divided Washington and across the country are growing. Robert Putnam, the political scientist best known for his book Bowling Alone, believes America is more polarized today than during the Civil War.

And if Putnam is correct, we have to ask why. Is it the heated debates over abortion? Over same-sex marriage? Illegal immigration? Regardless, this has not always been the case in America. There have been times when parties and politicians did what they felt was best for the country rather than only what was best for their party.

Originally published in The Stream.