An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Need For Non Partisan Partisanship

In recent weeks everyone from bloggers on the net to pundits on the networks have been discussing the issues of partisanship versus unity. Some have argued that it is more important for us to work together and to put partisan topics aside while others argue just as strongly that voters elect people to office to fight for the issues they believe in and thus it is necessary to be partisan.

As the title of this posting suggests, I think that to some degree both sides are right, which is why I am issuing a call for non partisan partisanship. Now I admit that make sound like an oxymoron (or maybe I sound like a plain old moron) but I think that this is exactly what we need and perhaps what President Obama has been pushing for.

One of his predecessors, Gerald Ford, often made use of his favorite saying, telling people that “We can disagree without being disagreeable”. It is this kind of political environment that I am hoping we can bring about in our national discourse and most importantly in the halls of power in Washington DC.

Clearly we all have our own ideas of how the country should be run and I am not suggesting that the Democrats or the Republicans give up on their core beliefs. Democrats clearly won the last election and thus should have the right to take the lead on things. At the same time millions of voters supported Republican candidates and those views have just as much right to be be heard and supported.

But just because you express a partisan viewpoint does not mean you cannot do so with a non partisan attitude.

So how might this be accomplished ?

We could consider this by looking to the pending stimulus package before Congress. President Obama thinks that it is important for us to pass it to get our economy going. Many Democrats agree with him but some have issues with portions of the proposal. Republicans are probably more against it than for it but some support the proposal or at least portions of it.

The real key though is that members of ALL parties support the idea of getting our economy going again. We simply have differing views as to how to best accomplish it. Democrats who support the proposals do not do so because they have some secret agenda to nationalize the economy and turn it into a socialist state. They support it because they see people in trouble out there and think this is the best first step to resolve the problem.

Similarly, Republicans who oppose the proposal do not do so because they are mean, nasty partisans who want to put themselves before their country or because they have some secret agenda to sabotage President Obama. They oppose the proposal because they sincerely believe that it will not solve the problems at hand and want to try a different kind of solution.

So when the two parties debate the topic in Congress or when we pundits and bloggers debate the topic on the airwaves or the net, I simply want us to do so in a civil manner. The concept that only your view is the correct one or that if someone opposes your solution to the problem then they are in favor of the problem is what has gotten us into the partisan muck we are stuck with today.

As I said, I think President Obama has the right idea in this area. While he has made it fairly clear that he is going to push for passage of his stimulus package he has also shown a very commendable willingness to discuss things with the Republican members of Congress. I don’t think this means he’s going to let them rewrite the package but I do think he recognizes that while 53% or so of voters supported him that means 47% did not and they have a right to be heard.

By contrast, I am dismayed by the reactions of Pelosi and Reid who have basically said that they don’t even plan to talk to the Republicans about things when it comes to passing legislation. During the years when Republicans were in control the Democrats often complained about the need for the majority to listen to the minority. While they sometimes went a bit far in their demands (which is just part of normal politics) I do think they had a legitimate complaint.

Sadly now that they are in control they have seemed to decide that the minority not only doesn’t need to be listened to but they might as well go home for the next two years. That kind of thinking needs to change and I hope that they take a page from their (and our) President.

I am reminded of a scene in the TV series “The West Wing” where an aide makes a comment to the President, telling him that “we talk about enemies more now”. It was a lament that partisan rancor was taking things over.

I hope that if we make the move beyond harsh partisanship that we can have an aide tell his boss that “we don’t talk about enemies anymore”.

  • greenschemes
    Free grants for Republicans.

    Do you like Sarah Palin?


    Im guessing your not serious. That this is a rhetorical musing in which the GOP is expected to give 100 percent because the left is right. After all. They won.
  • JSpencer
    Patrick, I appreciate your intentions, beliefs, and hopes with regard to the problems of uncivility and unproductivity associated with too much partisanship. I even agee with you about Pelosi and Reid, neither of who I am a big fan of... to put it mildly. But I would by lying if I said I didn't have a healthy measure of distrust for that portion of the republican party that has contributed so much to our current low level of dialogue and so much to the current difficult state of the union. After all the divisive rhetoric, arrogance, and poor governing, they are now in the throes of reaping what they have been sowing for many years. My hope would be that democrats would take a higher road when it comes to inclusiveness in congress (something the republicans refused to do) but by the same token I want to see them be very, very careful about caving to the wants of a party that has favored use of the color red more than any other, and I'm talking about wasted blood and treasure here. Yes, I ache for unity and an end to partisan division, but I also have to balance this against the adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What is the solution? Clearly there have to be greater displays and more evidence of trust between the parties, and it has to start somewhere, and the sooner the better, but please tell me, is there any reason why it couldn't have started before Obama took over the reins?
  • greenschemes
    The dialouge you seek might actually take place once the left realizes that 50 percent of the problem is of their own doing and 50 percent of the problem is the GOP's doing. Until then its as JSpencer says....we cant trust the right.

    AFter 8 years of Clinton bashing and now 8 years of Bush Bashing are we simply going to start over with Obama Bashing again? My guess is that this site purports to be moderate and yet adds appear here saying "Free grants for Republicans" "Do you like Sarah Palin?". The climate must change for the individuals to change and right now the knock down, drag out animosity continues by both sides and the climate hasnt changed. Until it stops raining we are not going to close the umbrellas.
  • casualobserver
    The dialouge you seek might actually take place once the left realizes that 50 percent of the problem is of their own doing and 50 percent of the problem is the GOP's doing.

    As far as this weblog goes, let's put your math to a verification test......

    For every editor post here that advances a conservative viewpoint or attacks a Democrat/liberal, I will owe you $10. For every editor post that advances a liberal viewpoint or attacks a Republican/conservative, you will owe me $10.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Of course the Republicans can go home, Patrick. They don't need to be there for everyone to know what their proposed solution for every single problem is. If they ever come up with anything besides cutting taxes in a way that benefits the wealthy disproportionately then there might be a point. But that's still the only thing they are interested in proposing, isn't it?

    Frankly, the current crop is so bereft of any real ideas I think if an asteroid were spotted hurtling towards the earth the only question in Republican minds would be what kind of tax cut might be best to propose.
  • SteveK
    casualobserver, Counting only the current, front page posts it appears you owe somebody $100. Maybe you should send it to Joe for site upkeep.


    note: Michael Regans handlers were charged double in my calculation. :)
  • Marlowecan
    Hahahahaha....Casualobserver's innovative money making scheme will have him in early retirement...on the beach with cabana girls bringing him Pina Coladas...by the end of the spring.

    JSpencer: The Gang of 14 was an excellent example of bipartisanship. It stopped the "nuclear option" being engaged by the GOP (it will be interesting if the Democrats try to go nuclear themselves).

    Also, the Democrats were hardly the innocent victims of Republican partisanship during the Bush years.
    The invective thrown about by the Left at Bush...such as Havesi's public praising of Sen. Schumer for his willingness at "putting a bullet between the president's eyes."...was unprecedented.
    **Can you imagine the howls on the Left today, if a Republican said the same thing re: President Obama? At the time, Democrats dismissed it as just a bad joke. "Lighten up...dumb GOP wingnuts...you can't take a joke."

    Many Republicans are hoping Pelosi will heed the hissing of the liberal fever swamps, and launch wholesale investigations of the Bush administration.
    The prospect of war crimes trials -- that one reads the liberal blogosphere pleading for -- would revitalize the GOP base like nothing else ever would.

    President Obama's "bipartisanship"...and his reluctance to engage in these investigations...is not done from the kindness of his heart.
    It makes total political sense, and casts him as a moderate.

    The great hope of the GOP is that President Obama's political intelligence is not widely shared on the other side of the aisle.
  • kritt11
    The biggest problem we have in this country is that too many are invested in opposition based on pure partisanship instead of rational disagreement. Both parties do this--- and it has resulted in an unworkable system, in which the minority works to obstruct the majority, regardless of the magnitude or urgency of the problem.

    Only possession of a supermajority enables either side to move forward. We are now in dire straits requiring drastic action, and so can no longer afford Congressional inaction. Yet, still, there is only superficial cooperation by the minority party.
  • Marlowecan
    Kritt said: "Only possession of a supermajority enables either side to move forward. We are now in dire straits requiring drastic action, and so can no longer afford Congressional inaction. Yet, still, there is only superficial cooperation by the minority party."

    Kritt, the Democrats do not technically need the cooperation of the GOP. They have a huge majority in the House, and an operational majority in the Senate (though not enough for cloture).

    President Obama wants political cover.

    He knows full well how Democratic candidates - such as Franken - in the election hammered GOP incumbents for the GOP support of the Bailout package. The Democratic candidates declared they would never have voted for it.

    If Obama gets the GOP publicly onside with the Stimulus, GOP candidates will not be able to return the favor to the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. He will have thus neutered the GOP in one major area.

    Obama's bipartisanship is smart politics.
  • casualobserver
    casualobserver, Counting only the current, front page posts it appears you owe somebody $100. Maybe you should send it to Joe for site upkeep.

    Then I'm still up $50 from yesterday since I charge triple every time Michael Stickings hits "Post" on his computer. As for Joe, I will cover his entire $870 fundraiser myself if he disengages Stickings.

    Yet, still, there is only superficial cooperation by the minority party. Kritt, in case you haven't been keeping count, there has been one major bill advanced and the minority party was denied input. Kinda hard to cooperate when you're not involved.
  • The democrats want to avoid responsibility for the economy if it's still in dire straits in 2-4 years. Republicans want to make sure they can't fix the economy so the voters will blame Democrats in 2-4 years.

    It's disgraceful on both sides, and does no one a service.
  • kritt11
    Marlowe-

    Maybe he wants a truly bipartisan solution. Why else would he be offering so much of what the GOP is asking for? He knows that the country's problems need to be faced and solved by both parties.

    He obviously won't win over the Limbaugh crowd-- but there are many who will be won over-- unless there is some threat in the party to drum out anyone who works with him and the Democrats to form a consensus.

    We criticized Bush because he totally ignored the opposition party and governed for the base- why criticize Obama for trying to be more inclusive-- which fulfills his campaign promises to do so???
  • greenschemes
    That is why I have declared this is war. Shock and Awe. It just happens to be the economy.

    The war in Iraq/Afghanistan was vehemently opposed and the democrats climbed on board the antiwar wagon and hitched their political star to hoping and praying and actively working for failure.

    The GOP is returning the favor on the economy. The only difference is the GOP has cover. They are NOT needed to get this done. If it fails. Voilla the GOP has done to the Democrats on the economy what the Democrats did to the GOP on the war. The difference. There really isnt any.

    The gop got to fight their war with the democrats screaming slurs at Bush. In this case Obama and the Democrats get to fight their war on the economy while the GOP can set patiently by as we all know that any recession will take 2 to 3 years to recover from. Come 2010 the democrats are going to be hip deep in a bloodbath at the polls with the GOP telling us we told you it would not work.
  • CStanley
    Maybe he wants a truly bipartisan solution. Why else would he be offering so much of what the GOP is asking for? He knows that the country's problems need to be faced and solved by both parties.

    Considering that Obama started calling for tax cuts and reversed his position on letting the Bush cuts expire during the campaign, it's a bit disingenuous to act as though he's now compromising with the GOP by supporting these things. The truth is, either he actually believes that this isn't the time for higher taxation (and that cutting is appropriate as a way to get money into the economy more quickly) or he knows the American people support tax cuts (more so than spending increases according to Rasmussen polling). Either way, it's not a compromise from the position that he himself either believes in or supports for his own political benefit.
  • kritt11
    CS- In one week he has met with GOP Congressional leaders twice to get their input--even though their votes are not needed.

    Do you know how many times GW met with Dem leaders when they were in the minority? Twice in 6 years.

    It appears that Republicans are only interested in obstruction of the new administration, as not a single House Republican voted for the bailout.
  • SteveK
    greenschemes said: "The war in Iraq/Afghanistan was vehemently opposed..."

    Any effort to join Iraq and Afghanistan with slash ("/") does NOT rewrite what happened... it does NOT rewrite history.

    Most Americans (both Democrat & Republican) as well as most of the World supported the war in Afghanistan, that's where bin Laden and Al Qaeda were.

    Only when the Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld Administration pulled most American Troops out of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq that an "anti-war bandwagon" got rolling.
  • greenschemes
    SteveK

    It does not matter the reasoning. It does not matter what you say. The facts are simple. The democrats screamed and prayed for Bush's failure. They sought it. They prayed for it. The coveted it. They hated Bush and they wanted him to fail.

    They sowed their seeds and now the GOP is going to let them reap their rewards. As I heard a snipet of what Limbaugh said today "Obama should be praying that the GOP votes 100 percent against this and it works.......that will be the end of the GOP."

    Isnt that what YOU want.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC