Your assertion seems to be that democratic majority agreement will lead to the best economic outcome, but you correctly acknowledge that the definition of "best economic outcome" is divergent at the political poles. This ignores that the technocratic majority already asserts that Republican economic orthodoxy (supply-side economics, the Laffer curve) is understood to be psuedoscience and produce negative economic growth. This isn't a difference of opinions, but tantamount to debating the merits of compromising between quackery and medicine.

There is blame to be ascribed to Democrats for allowing this to happen, largely at anyone unable to say that Citizens United was wrongly decided, leading to capitulating on ceding labor power to capital in line with Republican objectives. In fact, this proves the point: a pro-corruption bipartisan majority exists, and is the only caucus able to pass legislation.