RENE LOTH US Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is the latest casualty of a deeply troubled political system that isolates moderates and frustrates pragmatists - the very types of leaders average Americans say they want. Bayh, who announced his retirement this week after 11 years in Washington, cited a dysfunctional Congress sundered by strident rhetoric and demands for party purity. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving, he said. Bayh joins 10 other senators who announced their retirements this election cycle. At least four were considered moderates, holding views at times divergent from their party orthodoxy. Last year Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties rather than submit to continued browbeating from Republican leaders - or from primary voters, who tend to skew more to the political extremes. Before the Senate, Bayh had been Indianas governor, an executive post largely concerned with delivering services and balancing budgets. By contrast, Washington increasingly is less about finding solutions than scoring political points. It has become a boiling stew of vitriol with little room for diversity in either party. No doubt the Republicans lit the fire, with their lock-step opposition to anything President Obama might propose and their venomous, personal attacks amplified by new-media proselytizers. Republicans are being driven further to the edge by the crazy-quilt of activists rallying to the Tea Party movement, who see any sign of compromise as a betrayal or even treason. Obama warned Republicans of this danger at a cross-party summit this month. But Bayh also had problems with liberals, who have been irritated with him at least since 2002, when he voted for the Iraq war. Liberal blogs and commentary pages are rippling with pungent variations of good riddance. Yet Bayhs actual voting record was quite progressive for someone from a traditionally red state. In 2006 he received a 95 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, 100 percent from the union AFSCME, and zero from the social conservatives at the Family Research Council. Apparently, that isnt pure enough in the current environment. It wasnt always thus. In the 1970s, Republicans were often strong champions of abortion rights and pay equity for women. Democrats were often hawks on Vietnam. President Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency. Camaraderie off the clock between Tip ONeill and Ronald Reagan, or between Ted Kennedy and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, was something to champion, not avoid. It got things done. Now, not just politicians but many voters are gravitating to the fringes, egged on by an Internet culture that reinforces their existing biases. Most ordinary voters are simply disgusted. In a survey released last week the Pew Research Centre found the lowest ratings for Congress in 16 years. Asked which party better offered solutions to the countrys problems, 60 percent said Republicans were doing a poor job and 52 percent said the same of the Democrats. Its a pox on both their houses, said Pews president, Andrew Kohut. There is a difference, however. Democrats at least wring their hands over the low tone of the public debate. Republicans seem to revel in it. For a party that is fundamentally anti-government, stoking antipathy toward Washington is part of the skill set. If cynicism depresses voter turnout, so much the better. Beyond health care reform or stimulus plans, Obama promised Americans a new kind of politics. Republicans are determined to block that, too. Republicans may believe they have no reason to invest in bipartisan civility, but the fervent anti-government sentiment they think they can ride to capture new majorities in the fall elections is an incendiary force. Playing with fire, its easy to get burned. Boston Globe.