In Defense of Debate
Wrote one reader, in response to my recent post about the end of political parties:
All of this post-partisan stuff is rubbish. People will disagree with each other for as long as there are politics and people to take part in them.
While this reader might be surprised to hear it, I agree. I have no expectation that the end of political parties would end political disagreement. To the contrary: I know political disagreement will survive. Further, I believe it should survive. Disagreement can be good; it can sharpen the minds of debaters and improve the solutions they recommend. So I anticipate the end of political parties not to lose the benefits of political argument, but to yield more productive argument.
Political parties have a way of subverting argument, of turning it into a war of personalities rather than a battle of ideas. As former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards writes in the fourth chapter of his book, Reclaiming Conservatism:
Partisanship for its own sake reduces politics to a cynical game of personal advantage … When one’s party rather than one’s constituency becomes the most important factor, it creates a natural tendency for members of that party to follow the leader.
In other words, when parties dominate politics, ideas are not debated on their merits but on the basis of (a) who suggested them, (b) whether or not the suggester was a member of the “correct” party, and (c) whether or not the “correct” party’s leader approves.
Thus the desire to end political parties is really a desire to make politics, per Edwards, not just another term for war, but a legitimate, honest “debate about alternatives.” Is that possible in a single-party system? Thurman Hart suggests how it can be:
Our system almost always results in one of two conditions: a two-party system with competing parties, or a single-party system with competing factions.
Precisely — and competing “factions” or “caucuses” often provide a much better forum than parties do for debates about alternatives, because factions and caucuses (often though not always) form and dissolve on the basis of principles rather than their own self-preservation.
Consider the “Blue Dog Democrats.” The members of that caucus are largely focused on fiscal responsibility. If caucus members are loyal to that principle, they remain in the caucus. If they are disloyal to that principle, they are welcome to leave the caucus and join another. But they remain members of the same party, same government. They use the caucus to advance ideas/alternatives, not to attack the source of ideas/alternatives.
Net: Get rid of parties. Maintain caucuses. Debate alternatives not labels. Simple, right?
— To Be Continued —
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “In Defense of Debate”
Before writing off parties, I'd like to see the Duopoly fractured into 4-6+ parties and perhaps one or more new “outsider” parties introduced and have our House of Representatives (in cases of five or more seats in a state, or going to regional rather than state-district seat allocation to address the small-state problem) go to proportional representation (as in the state legislatures, fit as they are for reform anyway).
(Attempting again because of site crashes)
Before writing off the parties, I'd like to see the Duopoly fractured into 4-6+ parties, adding one or more “outsider” parties, and then going to proportional representation in the House of Representatives (in cases of states with five or more seats, or go to regional apportionment and allocation to address the small-state problem) and in state legislatures.
(Trying again — site keeps crashing)
I'd like to see the two major parties fractured into 4-6+ parties, additional parties invited to join them, and seats in the House of Representatives and in state legislatures awarded on the basis of proportional representation of election results.
Maybe not so simple Pete, but it's a good idea. In that same vein, I like your's too DLS, although I recall hearing similar suggestions coming from the left after GWB was elected. Funny how it's merits appreciate or depreciate depending on whether you feel represented or not.
1. Sorry for repetitions but Disqus thread has commonly not been showing earlier posted remarks, and causing Web browser currently to crash a lot.
2. J. Spencer — I have been on record numerous times in support of proportional representation, advocating it to fringe lefties, but in support of the concept itself, defending it against the contempt shown for it by the establishment Duopoly folks such as the Wall Street Journal (you know their stance on Perot and third-party people, probably, too), referring users to Douglas Amy's Proportional Representation Library site long before we, the people, cast our no-confidence vote in the GOP earlier this month.
3. Note that the caucus example given is composed of partisan members (Democrats). A misleadingly-named caucus consisting of people from both major political parties now that might be used as an example, in favor of big government, just not too big or nastty, would be a “moderate” or “mainstream” caucus. (As of 1965, perhaps…)
(Re-posting — continued crashes — that's one way to get “relief from DLS,” I suppose, but awfully crude; even the Russians are more sophisticated)
1. Sorry for earlier repeated remarks, but Disqus is causing multiple successive crashes and not displaying earlier posted remarks on the rare occasions when it does display _something_.
2. J. Spence — I've posted several times for ages about proportional representation; it has not suddenly been “discovered” by me here and now to give the GOP (hardly the fringe that the far Left is) a token measure of influence. At issue was what to do about parties (and the Duopoly).
3. Note the example at thread start is a caucus of … Democrats, i.e., a partisan source. A group of big-government fans (just not too much or too harsh big government, no icky stuff) from both parties might be a suitably misnamed “moderate” or “mainstream” (as of 1965) caucus.
DSL, I accept that my comment re: the merits of proportional representation may not apply to you in particular.
Heh, that was me. I think it could possibly be a good thing to have no political parties. That's what the Founders intended, if I remember correctly. I would like to see the political parties lose some of their clout, but I don't think I'm ready for something like what they have in Israel, where they have lots of political parties, and a single one can never form a majority. The fact that an ultra-Orthodox party named Shas refused caused them to have to go into elections over there. The only way that Shas would join was if the negotiations with the Palestinians stopped. So the danger with having too many parties is that it gives the extremists (on either side) more of a voice than they deserve.
DLS: I don't think it's the site that keeps crashing…. I have a similar problem that you have when I use a PC. However I generally have no problems with any of my Apple computers….. So if you're using a PC I'd suggest that you throw away that old dinosaur and go with a Mac.
For full disclosure I do not work for Apple nor do I own any Apple stock.
Back on the road — seems to work fine here, though at the other site yesterday only using this site crashed, not going to anything else; could be a DLS relief test periodically imposed. (No reduction in comment strings on any thread, I noticed already.)
By the way, last night on the news I heard that naturally, Obama prefers the Mac. (Someone in my family is religious about their Mac, or should I say conceited sometimes, which is why I try to avoid being so Mac-dedicated myself. PC's I guess are just “unwashed masses” devices…)
That's awesome. I'm very glad you posted this. So i have just given it a Digg