The ongoing session of our state Legislature has been marked, generally speaking, by a regular and refreshing clash of ideas - even when some might think the matter at hand was inconsequential or, at best, symbolic.

And yet there is the occasional unsettling exception, such as a situation last week when some misguided members tried to resolve a genuinely contentious issue on a bipartisan basis.

Examples abound of the current combative climate. Some confrontations have gotten a fair amount of attention, such as the great debate over the language used in drivers' license testing.

Currently, the tests can be given in Spanish, Korean or Japanese, as well as English, provided the applicant is a legal resident. Under a Republican-sponsored bill, mislabeled as an "English-only bill," the same practice would continue.

The only difference would be that, if the bill is approved, the practice would be a law, not a policy. And there's an administration bill that has some of the same language incorporated so that, just maybe, even that distinction doesn't apply in the Democrat-versus-Republican dichotomy.

Fortunately, the inconsequentiality of the proposed action has not prevented a major clash - Democrats roaring "senseless" at Republicans, Republicans raging "irrational" at Democrats. The bill, of course, passed the GOP-controlled Senate and is now virtually assured of dying in the Democrat-controlled House.

Sound and fury signifying nothing, some would say. It signifies differences that can be exploited in campaign ads to come.

Less noticed but equally illustrative of the confrontational norm was a meeting last week of the House Government Operations Committee. In play was a so-called "pay equity" bill backed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.

It tightens present law prohibiting gender discrimination in the workplace. Without getting into the boring specifics, suffice it to say there is enough substance there to warrant some debate.

But not in the "gov ops" committee, which under the rules governing such things cannot kill a bill - only send it along to the next committee with or without a recommendation. It's symbolic, not substantive.

Nonetheless, the committee divided into camps and spent last week's entire meeting on inconclusive bickering and parliamentary maneuvers, and then adjourned without accomplishing anything. Another refreshing clash over a bill with an already-ordained fate - pass the House, die in the Senate.

In contrast, a strange thing happened last week in the annual battle royal that pits doctors and insurance companies, mostly backed by Republicans, against trial lawyers, mostly backed by Democrats.

For years now, the docs have pushed for limits on how much they - or hospitals or insurance companies - can be forced to pay by a judge and jury when sued over fouling up some medical procedure.

For years now, those efforts have been beaten back by the lawyers and their friends. This year, it stands to be a pass-in-the-Senate-die-in-House situation.

But then the Republican sponsors of the bill, Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris of Collierville and Rep. Doug Overbey of Maryville, actually decided to negotiate. They sat down with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rob Briley, a Nashville Democrat who has been point man in opposing the so-called malpractice reform.

Even more alarming, the legislators acted independently without the assistance or input of any lobbyists! Just legislators - Democrats and Republicans together, by all appearances not even angry with one another.

In short, a dangerous precedent.

Happily for the status quo, it appears the modest package of compromise legislation that the out-of-line legislators produced - the idea was to reduce frivolous lawsuits on the front end and make the litigation process less costly - seems to have little chance of enactment into law.

Basically, it accomplished something but not enough to appease the all-or-nothing activist types.

Thus, the lobbyists will be assured of continued gainful employment as the warring sides battle through another session to accomplish nothing. Doctors, lawyers and other interested parties can then be encouraged to donate large sums of money to their preferred politicians.

The politicians can then fight the good fight once again, angry and outraged over the things that have not been done.

After all, in the way our legislative system has come to function, the clash is more important than the ideas.