IN THE polarised world of American politics, achieving bipartisan agreement on any topic is a rare feat nowadays. So perhaps it's worth celebrating the fact that, had it been put to a vote, the pick of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running-mate likely would've gained support from both parties. Less encouraging is the prospect that both sides will now use Mr Ryan, and his controversial budget plan, to further divide the electorate.
The momentum behind Mr Ryan's candidacy had picked up steam in the past week. Editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard and National Review had urged Mr Romney to select the representative from Wisconsin in order to clear up his own ideological fuzziness and clarify the stakes of the election.
The choice certainly does that. Nothing has defined the Republican agenda more than Mr Ryan's budget proposal, which aims to slash the deficit in the near term and bring the budget into balance by around 2040. Noble goals both, but in order to achieve these ends, the Congressional Budget Office says the plan would decimate nearly all government programmes except for Social Security, health care and defence by 2050.
This is unlikely to squelch the caricature of Mr Romney as a heartless elitist. While programmes for the poor would be cut, the "path to prosperity", as Mr Ryan's plan is titled, is paved with tax cuts for businesses and individuals. The plan would also transform Medicare into a voucher system aimed at controlling costs. Democratic attack dogs are salivating. The new ticket will undoubtedly face charges of "ending Medicare as we know it", an attack that was successfully field-tested in an upstate New York House race last year.
