On Partisanship

I was tonight going to post some (0.00 / 0)

horrific screed Styles Bridges laid into FDR and the New Deal, but seeing this up top, it sort of says the same thing I intended with that.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 20:36:51 PM CST

The question is whether the political party has an (0.00 / 0)

agenda that aims to promote the welfare of the polity (public) or is the organization directed exclusively at the exercise of power--i.e. the domination of or influence over some other group.  Republicans have devolved into a group that's mainly focused at disadvantaging or depriving others of sustenance.  It's a punitive agenda; the next step after the agenda of threat.  What's concerning to some people, especially people who recognize this pattern from the scenario of domestic abuse, is that the next step is likely to be overt aggression by those elements that aren't too lazy.  

Republicans have done the same thing in the political arena that they've done in business--turned competition into a contest to defeat.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:32:01 AM CST

I'll say a bit more (4.00 / 1)

1. I understand the appeal -- the dualism of the two parties can be frustrating and stymie work on the "big stuff" like healthcare. But why would ONE party (which is essentially what no partisanship means) solve anything at all?

2. The premise seems to assume that both parties are at fault; political coverage assumes this as well. This is simply not true. If you define the divide as "liberal" and "conservative," then, maybe, you can make a case for equal fault. But there is simply no comparison between Democrats and Republicans. That's not to say that all Republicans are bad, but the party machinery, from Michael Steele and Dick Cheney on down, is just rotten. Period amen. I watched clip the other day of Newt Gingrich -- a Republican "thought leader" -- defending the "death panels" charge. He was sputtering, you could tell he was lying and spinning and redirecting, but still, he sacrificed the truth for his own cause.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:22:52 AM CST

Adding (0.00 / 0)

At that point, it's not a cause -- it's partisanship for the sake of partisanship, in this case Newt's own hide. Shameless. But that's a perversion of a true philosophic divide.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:24:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

51% (4.00 / 1)

When we talk of a government for the people, does that mean all of the people or 51% of the people?

And if you're in the 49%, if that government isn't there for you, does that mean that segment of society should be disloyal to it?

Factionalism or partisanship or whatever you call it is fine as long as it's subordinate to the greater good, not a specific set of interests that appear to own the reins of power.

Because if that happens, there's resentment from those outside of power, and that resentment can get ugly as history shows us.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:50:55 AM CST

My answers (0.00 / 0)

All the people.

Disloyal how? I was always loyal to the US, and never carried a gun to a presidential rally (never went to one really), even though I thought Bush was wrecking our country. I was loyal to these United States.

I guess I don't get which axe you're grinding here. Do you want or expect us to admit our Democratic partisanship is misguided? Is this like the speech at the end of Rocky IV, when Rocky convinces the Russians to change?

If you're annoyed about a policy, politician, or platform plank, bring it on. But I don't get why you're questioning the premise of American politics on a partisan political site.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 11:35:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Should Probably Explain (4.00 / 1)

At times our political system chinese finger trap: One side pulls, the other side pulls harder in response, both sides get more stuck. I want to be a Democrat since I probably couldn't be a Republican, but I also want to get unstuck.

And the thing is that it really isn't any one person or one group, it's an endemic gridlock that seems to come from a lack of balance between ideological purity and electoral feasibility throughout the American political landscape at the national level.

I understand gridlock is nothing new, but I wonder why it seems so much is in our system.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 17:48:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Neither. (0.00 / 0)

Government of the people does not mean 'all the people.' Of course not - unanimity doesn't work once the second equal arrives.

Not does it mean 51%. Even if we did not have the slimy Senate we are constructed with more speed bumps / hysteresis than that.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 18:53:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then How Is It A "Government Of The People"? (4.00 / 1)

I joined the Democratic Party in 2003 because George W. Bush and his accolytes espoused behaviors identical to your first sentence, Elwood.

Not everyone will always agree, but they must always be given a forum where their views can be taken into account in a manner more than just lip service, or democracy cannot function.

Those who feel disenfranchised will do little more than obstruct the ability of government to function until they can take it over, and then the other side will do the same once they're out of power.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 09:25:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One more thing (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes partisanship means you have to take the good (Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes) with the bad. This is why independent voters annoy me -- they don't want to pay the dues of picking a side. This is distinct from compromise; you gotta pick a dance partner.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 11:21:43 AM CST

But they're so proud (4.00 / 2)

of being "independent."  One told me that she loved being courted by both sides.  I am trying to imagine being courted by the right.  No, I don't think I want to imagine that, after all.  [Shivers}

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 15:21:22 PM CST

OK, I prefer a democracy (4.00 / 1)

where you vote for the best man for the job, rather than for the red team or the blue team. The fact that in the United States you vote for an individual representative rather than a party (like, say, under the Westminster system), is probably the most appealing aspect of the American system.

Looking at the parties historically, there is no convincing ideological consistency, but basically some tribes are R and others D. Partisanship forces politicians into adopting the party-orthodox view of a given issue instead of evaluating each individually and critically.

There is no party of competence, but that's really what voters should determine: which individual is best suited for the job for the times. And maybe they should be doubly smart and think about what they want the outcome to look like. I'm uncomfortable with one party dominant in all branches of government. I don't care which party it is. Neither are disciplined and and honest and serious enough for this position. You have to hope for strong individuals to keep their parties in check.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 16:27:15 PM CST

More nonsense. (0.00 / 0)

We don't vote for/against the historical average of political parties. We vote for their current policies and coalitions.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 18:57:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We don't vote for parties at all (4.00 / 1)

we vote for individual names on the ballot. This is especially true in New Hampshire, which eliminated straight ticket voting.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 21:40:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No evidence for this in the Democratic Party (4.00 / 1)

Partisanship forces politicians into adopting the party-orthodox view of a given issue instead of evaluating each individually and critically.

Like now, you mean? :-!

---

by: JimC @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 07:16:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]