How Partisan Should a Partisan Be?
Is that right?
The first two US presidents–George Washington and John Adams–fiercely resisted and condemned party spirit, something they saw as contrary to patriotism, loyalty to country.
Because he was, as later eulogized, “first in…the hearts of his countrymen,” Washington was able to successfully govern while refusing to align himself with any faction during his two terms. (Although even during his second term, Washington was subjected to scurrilous press attacks orchestrated by Thomas Jefferson.)
Adams, ever independent and rarely tactful, was deemed irrelevant by the two parties which emerged during his presidency: the Federalists, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, and the Republicans (later the Democrats), led by Jefferson.
The rise of political parties was probably to be expected. And, I feel, we’ve been blessed in this country to have only two major parties, big tents that have, except in the years immediately before and for some time after the Civil War, cut across regional lines. The parties have, through much of our history, been places that could debate and subsume new notions advanced within and outside their ranks, and that have helped knit the country together. Through them, we’ve avoided the madness of Europe’s multiparty chaos and we’ve become more of a United States of America.
Parties afford those who share beliefs in a broad set of political principles and ideas to work together. That’s good, in my book.
But should partisan affiliation be a strait jacket? If you’re a Democratic or Republican office holder or candidate, should you feel bound to support every candidate or office holder who wears the same label, even if you think that person is incompetent, dishonest, or unqualified?
Or, should you feel constrained from endorsing a candidate you think is clearly better, even when that person is from the other party?
I know nothing about the particulars of the Cuyahoga County case. But it does seem emblematic of the sort of thinking that has led to gridlock in Washington and red-and-blue isolation around the country. It’s nuts!
On a recent edition of The News Hour on PBS, conservative columnist David Brooks lamented the depressing partisan kabuki dance in which seemingly intelligent members of Congress engage. He described a large class of Washington politicians as being reasonable in private, willing even to admit where members of the opposition party might be right, but irrationally partisan once they appear before the media and constituent groups.
At weekly partisan gatherings, these members of Congress who get paid base salaries of $169,300 per year, presumably to apply their best thinking to their jobs, are given that week’s partisan talking points. Any number of pundits, hacks, political functionaries, and bloggers readily mimic these “points” so that, all across the country, on TV, radio, and the Internet, the rest of us are subjected not to debates, but a kind of mindless automaton-speak.
This nuttiness permeates all the way down to the local level, making our politics less about getting things done than getting and keeping power as a game…with innumerable perks.
Two local mayors endorsed a candidate for county commissioner from another party. They may be wrong in their judgment. Their motives may even be wrong. But how much partisanship is too much?
Democracy requires grownups. How much of this partisan childishness can the US political system take?
John McCain and Barack Obama would do us all a favor by being grownups this year, moving beyond partisan cliches even while upholding their own basic principles, evidencing a willingness to compromise, and owning their flip-flops when they result from mature consideration. Most Americans, I think, would welcome such a mature approach to our politics. We might learn from their examples should Obama and McCain take this approach.
So far, they’ve failed us all.
[This is being cross posted at Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels.]
7 Responses to “How Partisan Should a Partisan Be?”
You can never be to partisan, as has been shown by the Repug Party.
Lose an election, impeach the winner.
Lose an election, get the Supremes to put you in the white house.
Lose an election, recall the governor.
Win an election, Redistrict your opponents out of their districts.
Start a pointless war, claim opponents to said war are traitors, French or cowards, take your pick.
Let major American city drown because it is controlled by your opponents.
whine like a little bitch when your opponents adopt your tactics.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
You can never be to partisan, as has been shown by the Repug Party.
Lose an election, impeach the winner.
Lose an election, get the Supremes to put you in the white house.
Lose an election, recall the governor.
Win an election, Redistrict your opponents out of their districts.
Start a pointless war, claim opponents to said war are traitors, French or cowards, take your pick.
Let major American city drown because it is controlled by your opponents.
whine like a little bitch when your opponents adopt your tactics.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Thomas Jefferson himself most likely would agree with your article, except for the tiny, parenthetical part claiming he orchestrated “scurrilous press attacks” against President Washington. Perhaps you've read several accounts which claim that contention, but a broader, objective study won't support it. Partisans in the 1790s would take things out of context, just as they do today.
Mr. Jefferson hated the rise of “party” and was unwavering in his support of President Washington. Yet, he made his views known, primarily in personal correspondence to friends, whenever he sensed a retreat from the republican principles upon which the nation was founded.
To claim that he organized and pursued a coarse campaign against Washington in the newspapers shows a lack of understanding of the times and of the personality of Thomas Jefferson.
How rich! Being lectured by David Brooks about being too partisan and about Washington insiders playing up to the media (let's forget about those Times columns and repeated TV appearances by one Mr Brooks – most of these appearances being incredibly partisan).
It's Bush's fault… really…
What I mean by that is Bush as our president has set an example that it is OK to politicize everything, including non-political jobs. Then the people who feel disenfranchised (in this case the Dems) feel that (a) since Bush as president has set this as an example, then it is fine to do it to get ahead, and not bother working/compromising with others and (b) since the Bush has drawn the lines of “us vs. them” then the Dems must stick together to fight for what Dems want.
It's not right, but I think I understand how it has come about. It's a sad state, but Bush has turned the citizens of this country against one another for his own political purposes and personal gain.