Login Here
Yesterday I found myself on the phone with a man who had held one of the highest civil service posts in the United States, which he had filled with honor, including pushing back hard against George Bush when necessary. It was an interesting and instructive conversation, but there's one thing from it that left me somewhat bothered. It's a line we hear a lot:
"I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an American."
Now, on the one hand, this is completely unexceptional. I think every American should be an American first and a member of a political party second. But it was said with a combination of fervor and disdain which bothered me, and when I pushed a little further what I found was what I expected, a certain inside-the-beltway disdain for the very idea of partisanship, a belief that the center is the middle of the two extremes and that the country is at that center. Also a belief that people should just put aside partisanship and "do the right thing".
Which would be great. Except that what the "right thing" is isn't agreed on by both parties or even by factions within each party. Let's forget the worst excesses, lets grant that you can believe there are different things that could be good for the US, and others can believe the exact opposite, and you can both be sincere.
Now disdain for political parties and partisanship is, I think, a very good thing in two groups, one of which this man belonged to. The military, and the career public service. I really don't think that Generals or senior civil servants should express strong partisan beliefs.
However the attitude is a dangerous one when it takes over the decision making and commentary apparatus too much, as it has. Why?:
- The center is not halfway between the extremes. The center is where the majority of the population is. The majority of the population is for Roe vs. Wade. It is for universal healthcare. It is for leaving Iraq and has been for years. This is not the "beltway" center, but it is the center. And it is currently represented better by one party than another. The center and democratic consensus are not halfway between the two parties, they are with the party that is with the population.
- Partisanship and ideology are not always problems to be solved, often they are stop problems cold, or even solve them. I want you to imagine a world in which there were 30 more fire breathing liberals in the Senate in 2001 and a hundred more in the House. Imagine then the world today. No huge tax cuts for the rich, and thus no huge deficits. Effective intelligence oversight and while torture would have occurred anyway it would have been shut down. The Iraq war might not have happened at all, if it had, it would have been defunded and ended quickly and if George didn't like that he would probably have been impeached. Etc... In this, much more partisan world, the US would have been much better off.
Partisanship is not the disease. It is partisanship and ideology and belief in ideas that makes people willing to stand up and fight and fight hard. Not really believing in much of anything, Congressional Democrats, even when in the majority, were mostly unable to stand up to Republicans because they didn't believe, because they weren't ideological and because they weren't partisan enough.
The founders were worried about parties, but parties are how democracies work. And parties work best when they despise each other and can be counted on to stop each other's excesses. Too much partisanship is not what got the US into this mess, insufficient partisanship is what did.
Let the parties fight, let ideas fight, let fire-breathing liberals and conservatives go toe-to-toe saying what they actually mean and want rather than dancing daintily around. Let them fight for power, let them be greedy for it, but let both sides be greedy for it. That's what the founders expected—that Congress would check the Presidency, out of jealousy of its own power and that factions in Congress would fight each other. That would have happened if Democrats were more partisan and more ideological.
So should we really decry partisanship? Should we really bury it? Or perhaps, just perhaps, should we recognize that in the good fight of hot partisanship and honest ideology; in the bravery and moral certitude required to say "no, that's wrong and I won't let you do it" is the strength required, the moral fire required, to run a country like the United States.
Share This 
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
i think the problem today is that when it comes to the democratic party, partisanship is the opposite of ideology and belief in ideas.
”Parties work best when they despise each other and can be counted on to stop each other’s excesses.”
Uh, excuse me–that’s false when it comes to the crap that the Republicans have been peddling for the past 16 years or so.
What you mean to say that it’s good when people are partisan AND ARE SANE.
What the Republicans have been doing is mindless intransigence and vicious fighting and not serving the American people.
Fighting every single fucking Clinton judicial nominee? Screaming that Democrats are vicious partisans if they put up some mild resistance to a couple of Bush’s judicial nominees somewhere to the right of Torquemada?
Get real. …Or you’ll just leave Cheney sniggering.
How to get people to think about Peace:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....peace.html
(first pic’s quite pretty, but not a real posting. the rest are though…)
I hate centrists even more that I hate conservatives. At least conservatives stand for something.
Hard to know where the center is on some issues- there is a large bi-modal distribution and this does get widened by partisanship…
Attitudes on abortion are not clear….a slight majority favors Roe- but a strong majority says that abortion should only be legal sometimes and there is no clear middle ground as to when the “sometimes” should be.
Excepts from Washington’s Farewell Address concerning political parties
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”"
Political parties have a vested interest in conflict and in magnifying the differences that separate them—they prefer to paint those differences as “moral” differences- so those that disagree are not just wrong- they are evil…
This leads to an inability to get things done…It’s not all roses in partisan land.
You’ve got that exactly right. If you don’t have one real dominant party (capable of getting stuff through congress and past congressional veto), extreme partisanship is just spinning everybody’s wheels.
What a concept “DO the Right Thing” Gee ya think!!
Ok pups Digg is open so go ahead and Digg this Post by Ian!!
WARNING: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, WITH CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President, 69 members of the Senate and 293 members of the House of Representatives.
It’s rather like al caca isn’t it? There is no al caca really, as it isn’t a state. Or is it Saudi citizens that started and direct it? Let’s look at it from the middle. Someone claims al caca makes this attach, or that attack. Someone claims they are in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, but no one ever seems to be able to confirm it.
Oh the labels that are used to fool the stupid. Our government is working with all the governments we say harbor al caca. They provide weapons, intel, money and transportation for them.
I wonder why? Does it bother you that we have caught a handful of these bogies and yet we still hear that we are at war with these folks?
Every indication is that al caca is an ally, because they are present in the government of every country that we claim has members. Got to name that boogie man something different other than Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Names don’t mean a lot when the proof is that it is just a way to play war, and fund the people that give half the money back to members of our own government to vilify them.
I am sorry, but these jokes are passe. I still can’t believe that after all this time, and all that has been said about al caca proven to be false, yet we still pretend?
When you want a war, what better than to have the enemy an ally?
I see your point about partisanship - but I see a problem when partisanship becomes the vehicle for something else, such as unlimited power and wealth.
There is also an inherent problem with Congress and president acting as counterbalances to each other - if members of congress are partisans, what is to make them abandon that political partisanship to curb the power, arrogance, or plain stupidity of the president? For the party in power, the presidency (assuming the president is in the same party) becomes just another avenue for fulfilling the partisan agenda.
Maybe you guys are right. Let’s just stop worrying and vote for Obama. We don’t need no stinkin’ civil liberties, health care abortion rights or jobs.
Most of the “partisanship” we view in Washington is bullshit- with both sides caricacturing the other and fighting red herrings and strawmen- just trying to find a way to collect more campaign funding- not trying to clarify or solve a problem…
In fact, partisanship depends on NOT solving problems that are politically profitable…like killin the golden egg layin goose.
and sorry if conceived to be off topic, but it proves that congress are all on the take. Partisanship fails when confronted with the bribery that makes them “centrist” It is organized crime, isn’t it?
I look at our system as one party two factions. The food fight called partisanship is like believing in wrestling, scream and shout for your favorite against his mortal enemy, and they laugh all the way to the bank.
Public approval of Congress may be at shoestring levels, but the House Republican Conference has found at least one way to boost morale among members: give them awards for speaking on the floor.
“It’s a spirit award,” said Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, a past recipient of caucus awards for his floor speeches. Wilson says his speechifying has won him busts of Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt.
“I did get a plaque one time,” he said.
The practice has some Republicans scratching their heads.
“The idea that people who are in the House of Representatives need to give each other awards for talking bull——, and that’s really what it is,” one Republican member said before he trailed off in disbelief. “What kind of a party is that?”
“…if members of congress are partisans, what is to make them abandon that political partisanship to curb the power, arrogance, or plain stupidity of the president?”
Answer: “And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
Unfortunately corporations within the 4th estate determine public opinion while snuffing the free expression of the governed. Yes our house is being consumed by flame, set from within by arsonists, while many are distracted by wedge issues, servile prejudices and opportunists who pray on ignorance everyday!
Religious people turn to scripture for guidance. Americans must go back to the enlightened words of our founders. We ignore their wisdom every day and pay the price!
In response to the hot political climate, WaPo is running an endless summary of the Sandra Levy case….holy shit! Who reads that shit?
This is old military tradition, or was. When asked by postwar investigators why he had never joined the Nazi Party, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein replied,” A Prussian Field Marshal should serve with equal devotion no matter who is in power.”
excellent point.
The only problem congressgreedheads want to address is getting reelected in order to maintain their positions of power and influence, leading to a lucrative gig at some corporation or think tank when they retire or get thrown out.
Based on the available polling data, the “center” in American politics (as you have accurately defined it) is in fact significantly to the left of either of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination. McCain and the Republicans are on the far right of the spectrum.
As a political anthropologist, I would like to point out that conflict (i.e., partisanship) is the whole reason for politics. If we “could all just get along and agree” then we would not need political systems. There is conflict and disagreement in all societies (even small-scale egalitarian societies like the !Kung San of the Kalahari). What our media and political elites are trying to do is to impose their views (and thereby their interests) on the rest of the country. My personal response is quite simply, Fuck them.
Anyone care to guess how many billions in campaign contributions have been raised by both sides over the years on abortion?
I don’t even want to know. Forced birth is about the control of women. The kind of people who will choke a cat to death in front of its guardian, saying “Next time you’ll listen to me and do as I say.” That was a news story on CNN.com the other day.
Our choice is between representative democracy which involves huge ambiguities. i.e. 80% of the people supposedly oppose the war in Iraq, but neither presidential candidate agrees to the point of taking an anti-war position, or direct electronic democracy for which almost no one is ready.
Throw in nationalism and you have an unholy mess where partisanship is irrelevant. Will partisanship resolve the mortgage mess? Not anymore than it limits bogus claims of executive privilege. For partisanship to matter the parties have to stand for something. Republicans do that better than Democrats.
Back to the capitalist cesspool.
Namaste
Yon Cheney has a lean and hungry look….
Newt Gingrich came to power in 1994, in part, because in enacting his extreme, centrist management of the GOP, he successfully manipulated the Villagers’ adoration of the “center”. The GOP continues to do that, aggressively redefining the “center” as what it wants, while paying lip service to the center as if it were still the classical golden mean.
The Constitution is a social compact as well as a founding legal document. Agreements are kept only when there is a consequence for breaking them: social, political (the social on a larger scale), moral, physical or legal. That was old news when woman invented fire. Partisanship maintains that agreement. It invokes consequences for those who abuse it, even as it invites that abuse because the brass ring is heightened political power.
A lack of partisanship will not protect the Constitution and the relationship it creates between ourselves and our government. It will allow its gutting and, in this case, being supplanted by a corporate/political compact known as fascism.
And would the country have been better off over the last 7 years if the government had spun its wheels?
Just a driveby as I am lost among all of today’s posts but excellent Ian. Bipartisanship is just a tag that Republicans and the media use to mean that the Democrats have caved again. If bipartisanship were real we would not see this endless series of votes where Republicans vote in lockstep and Democrats split their vote.
As is so often the case in our politics, bipartisanship is another false narrative foisted on us and repeated often enough so that it seems plausible to a good chunk of American voters.
Bipartisan, as used by today’s GOP and Village idiots, means giving the GOP whatever it wants. Works for Joe Lieberman.
Great post, Ian.
The idea that the “center” is halfway between the radically right-wing positions of the rethugs and the mildly left-center (by-and-large) positions of the Dems is pushed constantly in the media, this is a fine response to the propaganda.
Back when I was in college (last two years of Jimmy Carter, first two years of Ronald Reagan), I decided that Republicans were evil. I picked up the occasional copy of Soldier of Fortune anyway as I was interested in the articles on military stuff. Well, I saw a lecture by an attractive woman who was living in El Salvador. I later saw her featured in SoF. I was all prepared to believe her side and not theirs, but as SoF was a highly partisan rag, they pulled out all the stops and did their best to make the case that she was guilty as charged.
I was impressed and decided that no matter what my prior feelings on an issue were or on what the identities of the partisans were, what mattered was the evidence. Those who are determined to make a partisan case and have the facts on their side are going to be convincing. Those who make a partisan case and can’t back up their case are not going to be convincing.
Obviously, there need to be rules and there has to be some regard for truth and both or multiple sides should be able to make their case, but I agree. Partisanship is the best avenue to go to get at the truth.