Is Bipartisanship Back? Don't Count on It. Has bipartisanship suddenly arrived in Washington? Not likely. After months of frosty relations between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill, President Obama invited the four leaders of the House and Senate for a closed-door luncheon on Wednesday that members of both parties hailed as a step in the right direction. It was the first time in months that Mr. Obama has held such a meeting. And it came as politicians in Washington were bracing for a difficult and bitter election year during which the nation's most vexing economic challenges are likely to be punted until after voting on November 6. In that context, the meeting was declared to be a healthy step. In an afternoon news conference, House Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, called it a "positive lunch and a very fruitful conversation." Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, expressed hope that the meeting would lead to progress on stalled legislation. And at the White House, Jay Carney, Mr. Obama's spokesman, said "there is reason to hope" that predictions of a Congress bogged down in partisanship and sniping this year would not come to pass. The meeting also included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House; and Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate. They discussed a variety of topics, a range of topics both domestic and foreign. And they discussed ways that they could build on the bipartisan cooperation that led to the extension of the payroll tax cut as well as unemployment insurance," Mr. Carney said. And yet, both sides acknowledged afterward that little of substance had changed in terms of the disagreements on issues like energy, jobs and the economy. Despite the imagery, neither side emerged with any announcements to make on long-stalled legislation or difficult philosophical stalemates. And the highly stage-managed luncheon came just a day after a much more pessimistic assessment of Washington was delivered. Olympia Snowe, a long-time Republican senator from Maine, announced on Tuesday that she would not seek re-election this year, bringing a surprise close to a a 33-year Congressional career. Ms. Snowe's tenure in Washington had been one of compromise and cooperation - even if those traits sometimes infuriated some in her own party. A moderate Republican, she has often sided with Democrats to help resolve the stickiest legislative gridlocks. But in announcing her departure, Ms. Snowe explicitly blamed a changing culture in Washington that she said had made those kinds of political accommodations all but impossible. "I do find it frustrating," she wrote in a statement, "that an atmosphere of polarization and "my way or the highway" ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions." Ms. Snowe said that she would have been "well prepared" for the electoral battle ahead if she had decided to run for a fourth term. But she cast doubt on the chances that a new bipartisan spirit would emerge during the next six years. "I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term," she wrote. As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern. Ms. Snowe's decision stunned Washington, in part because of the new difficulty that Republicans now face in recapturing control of the Senate this year. The party had expected Ms. Snowe to easily win re-election; her seat is now up for grabs. But her reason for quitting was also a stark reminder of how much had changed in Washington in the years since she and other centrist politicians regularly managed to shape public policy. Many of those lawmakers have left in recent years, especially from the Senate. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat, announced this year that he would not seek re-election. Former Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana left in 2011 after expressing similar frustration. "We're working in a parallel universe with competing proposals," Ms. Snowe said on MSNBC on Wednesday. She described current-day Washington as a place "where it's dysfunctional and political paralysis has overtaken the environment to the detriment to the good of the country." Ms. Snowe's assessment contrasts sharply with the sunny-side-up commentary from the White House and the Congressional leadership Wednesday afternoon. But the reality may be that - in spite of their public pronouncements to the contrary - Ms. Snowe's assessment more accurately reflects the sentiment of the six politicians who met together at the White House on Wednesday. Voters in both parties have consistently said in overwhelming numbers that they wanted bipartisanship in Washington. The nation is often sharply divided on issues of philosophy and governance, but they nonetheless say they want their political leaders to go to Washington and find a way to resolve the differences. In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in January of this year, 85 percent of those surveyed said they would rather have Democrats and Republicans compromise some of their positions to get something done. Just 11 percent said they should stick to their positions even if it means getting less done. And those numbers are not a fluke. How many people said they wanted compromise in September of last year? Eighty-five percent. What about a month earlier, in August of last year? The same - 85 percent. The surveys suggest that there are reasons why politicians might want to demonstrate bipartisanship even when the reality is gridlock. If the spirit of bipartisanship has truly returned, then Mr. Obama and the lawmakers he met with on Wednesday should be able to find a way to work together this year on issues like the nation's debt, the payroll tax cut, spending cuts and the expiring Bush-era tax cuts. But if Ms. Snowe is right, the lunch may lead to little more than window dressing.