What is so wrong with partisanship?

I don't know why so many people have become to hate partisanship. Okay, I do know. But I think that the hate shouldn't be blamed on partisanship. I think the problem is with hyper-partisanship and that people aren't able to come to solutions on problems that people like. Like for me, I consider myself an anarchist.

So I am partisan in the sense that I have many views that I won't compromise on. I would however if I were in a position of power work with other people in various political parties to help meet my own goals without sacrificing what I believe in.

I think that's what the problem is. A lot of these Republicans don't want to sacrifice what they believe in so they always vote against whatever the Democrats are doing. Not because they want to stop Obama's agenda no matter what. But because if the bill does something they don't like they won't want it passed. Now the problems here arise not when partisanship happens, but because of hyper-partisanship. Hyper-partisanship is always opposing someone or something no matter what regardless of the consequences.

It is of my opinion that partisanship isn't the real enemy here. Why has partisanship been given such a bad name? If anything bi-partisanship and the caving in that the Democrats did during the Bush administration should be frowned upon.

People should be partisan and should be bi-partisan where they would agree. I would not expect anything less from myself, and I don't see why other people wouldn't act that way either. I don't think it should necessarily be a universal principle. But partisanship really is just about having an opinion and not backing off from it. If you change your mind you can be less partisan in that opinion. You can even change your partisan opinion.

Being bi-partisan would mean that you either share both of the views or that you are just sacrificing your own interest in order to appease the other side. I personally don't see why this is seen as such more greatly desired except unless you're trying to go for a greater gain in the long run, which I guess as a political strategy it would work to counter the opposition (since if most people support it, it would be a good thing to sign on to).

I'm not quite so sure why partisanship has been seen as the enemy. If anything one would think that the bi-partisanship (as seen by the support for the economic bailouts by the Bush administration and the Democrats, the Patriot Act, the military commissions, and the NCLB act) would be looked down upon more.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


the masses are easier to manipulate and influence if they are conditioned to be linear minded, or thinking binary wise, ie left/right, good/bad, right/wrong, heaven/hell, ect..

peoples' opinions are more malleable when habitually thinking simplisticly. that is why the msm speaks at 5th grade levels, presidents speeches written at 7th grade levels, etc.

americas average iq is 98. 75 is legally retarded, 140 is genius. americans are closer to legally retarded. it's easier this way in order to make decisions for others without them knowing what is really going on.

are you a law abiding citizen?
sure you are, i believe you.
how many laws are there?

s&f,
et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


I agree with you that people need to stop thinking in terms of if they're right or wrong. I just don't think there's anything wrong with partisanship. People need to form their own opinions and think for themselves. I was talking about partisanship as in being committed to their ideals rather than to the general government or a political party.

As for following the rule of law, I have no idea if I am or if I'm not a criminal anymore. I try to be a law-abiding citizen, I don't steal stuff, but there are so many laws out there and so many rules that I don't really know.

You bring up a good point though. There are a lot of unnecessary laws that the state creates for the sole purpose of regulating morality and which the state can use to enforce certain guidelines for human behavior even if there is nothing evil about its nature. I have no idea if I am considered or not considered a criminal because of this, and I think that you should pose the same question to yourself. I'm sure everyone has broken some regulation or some rule at some point in time.

i don't think anything is wrong with partisanship...i think it's silly to expect everyone to conform to non-conformity...and it's quite hypocritical to have that expectation.

HOWEVER

Too much of anything is a bad thing...when you start siding with someone JUST BECAUSE they are a republican or democrat (even if you, personally, completely disagree with that person) then you're taking it too far.

And to that extent, we enter modern days, where it's pathetic to associate yourself with the two main retard political parties.

They've both run their course and need replaced in a big bad way. All of them.

Especially the likes of Sarah Palin & Nancy Pelosi.

reply to post by Snarf


Wow. I guess then from that point of view you could argue that the problem is that these ideas that have been trying are old and they haven't worked and that we need new ideas and new principles to govern things. I think a policy that people could be agreed upon that would be of a benefit to everyone without the use of coercion would be a good thing.

I think one of the problems is that people have gotten so far away from the ideas of the enlightenment and more to the ideas of statism and totalitarianism that it's really quite scary now the kinds of ideas that people will propose and suggest to our political system. There are sometimes when I wonder if we're heading down the road of a totalitarian government. Of course we have a police state, and a fascist economy already, but the next phase is when the people have that authoritarian mindset, and I think that's what is happening at the moment.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


A few issues with partisanship -

It reduces people's opinions into bare-bones platforms. In truth if people form their own educated decisions they're likely to end up being centrist, they'll have some ideas from the left and some from the right. The issue with the party system is that it allows people to be lazy, they just pick a party and a platform and mold that to their own opinions and it can lead to people accepting a platform without really thinking about whether they agree with all of its stances. So it encourages hopping on the bandwagon instead of informed decision making.

Another issue is that it often runs in families. Much like religious ideology a parent's political stances can often pass to their children. Indoctrinating a child into whatever party the parent's follow can once again create a mindless follower who is only Republican or Democrat because their parent's were.

It creates division as well and creates what is known as a false dichotomy. In truth there is more than just right or left, there are vast arrays of varied opinions that people can have and not all of them conform to a particular party.

Also, as with any other ideology, when taken to extremes political parties and platforms turn bad for everyone.

Another thing to consider is that regardless of what party the President usually ends up being somewhere in between - the President suffers an inability to please those who elected him while catching continuous flack from the other side of the spectrum. We saw this with Bush, many conservatives abandoned him while the Left attacked. Obama is getting a similar treatment, with Democrats complaining that he isn't doing enough to deliver on campaign promises while every slight action or inaction is torn to shreds by the right-wing propaganda machine. Again, it brings division.

And through all this we almost forget that we're all Americans and that if we really formed our own decisions we'd probably end up agreeing on more things than we disagree on. Like I said we'd tend towards being Centrists, moderates, if only we could block out the shrill voices of the people on the extreme ends of each part screaming at each other.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I think I'm starting to get it. The problem lies with people not being independent thinkers and letting partisanship thinking do it all for them. I've encountered many people with this kind of mindset. They claim that they just like the ideology they like because it speaks to them yet all they do is repeat the various talking points the ideology espouses.

For me, with regards to anarchism, I have been trying to develop my own unique form of anarchism that is more suitable to me. I think that when people stick to a system of rules that they can't think of any other ways of doing things and it would become problematic.

On the other hand, couldn't we argue that the elites in Washington are not representative of anyone's interests but their own interest groups and they cloak their allegiance to certain interest groups with their rhetoric? How much of it is real? How much of their talk and actions is dedicated to their ideology and principles and not to various groups? I've been watching some politicians ally themselves with a lot of industry groups like Jim Boehner and they seem to do it more based on an interest groups alliance rather than a political ideology or partisanship. What about that?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I agree with you that people need to stop thinking in terms of if they're right or wrong. I just don't think there's anything wrong with partisanship. People need to form their own opinions and think for themselves.

People are not permited to think for themselves or form their own opinions IF paristisanship saturates Main Stream Media to the degree that the press is no longer the press, rather a partisan affiliated propaganda machine.

information should not be delivered from a perspective or with an agenda other than reporting on the facts. not embelleshed (sp?) opinionated hypocrits pandering expectations they cannot live up to, and finding the worst news legally permitted to deliver for shock value and ratings.

these are a few of my thoughts on this issue.

thanks,
et

Partisanship is what the mainstream media thrives upon, although it has morphed into a fringe extremist right/left variety. The media can't make money off of a gray area. They need a target market. The consequences of this are negative. Free thinking, and one's natural inclination towards a sort of personal centrism is challenged by the new status quo, and therefore discouraged.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


i think its a naive view for the simple fact you can not pick and chose which views you want to adhere to the current system we have doesnt offer that luxury and it is a luxury.

from whichever perspective you look at both have things they are strong or weak on more or less its all or nothing.

for instance my problems with the left is they are weak on defense and have to grandiose goals when it comes to social programs and entitlements and it is a fact of life that there is not enough money in the world to do everything they want and we are paying the price for it now.

the right isnt perfect by no means but for the past 40 years i seem to have more money with them that the others.

then i look at how the left treats anyone who disagrees with them for the past 10 years specifically its the hypocritical nature of the left that they can never do anything wrong they always supposedly have the moral high ground and if you dont have the same ideals as them your a racist a bigot a islamophobe or you hate the middle class.
back even further ive sat there and watched how the left treated a sitting president for 8 years and continues to treat him.

the left demands respect from others but gives none to anyone who isnt the left.

partisanship or hyperpartisanship
right and wrong
morality or ethics.

the choice was clear for me to pick

Frank, I wanted say thank you for your contribution, it seems like you have become very introspective which rings true with me, thanks for the great content.

I think the concept behind partisanship is what ensures our freedom... I also think the founding fathers understood this... They allowed for the expansion and contraction of government, they understood that people advocate for both. You will see that if ONE SIDE ever took over permanently it would be tyranny. As it is we fight and bicker,
but this very act is the act of a free people, it is very, very healthy. Unfortunately this does not create great results in governance because we constantly undermine the core principles of each others ideas and policies. This is the price we pay -