I on the other hand would agree with the article. Partisanship does NOT always have to be something bad. Partisanship allows for healthy and beneficial disagreement on most issues that deserve a wide and varied opinion. Without partisanship, the greatest freedoms that our country provides would be lost to potentially ill conceived and one sided perspectives that lacked any input from other the other side of the issues. While on one hand I agree completely that party politics have become more and more about gaining that majority or holding the most seats, I think that there is a certain time where partisanship needs to be put aside on issues like Healthcare, Social Security, etc, Not because I am a socialist-commie, but rather that these are monumental projects that involve the WHOLE of our nation. In any other case in which civil liberties are attacked or questioned, I find that partisanship and healthy disagreements provide the best results. Whether it be through the formation of PACS, a split Senate vote, and Presidential veto or any other form of checks and balances, partisanship is a part of what makes the United States such an outstanding place to live in; One where opinions and views across the political spectrum are are able to express their feelings on any issue they feel inclined to.
Partisanship Is Good
Basic disputes between the two parties are not only inevitable—they're essential to a healthy society.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Like most presidents, Barack Obama came to The White House hoping his unique gifts might overcome party divisions in Washington. And as with most presidents, it has not taken him long to discover otherwise. His second week in office saw the most distinctly party-line vote on a major piece of legislation in the House of Representatives in many years, as exactly zero Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, while all but 11 Democrats backed it.
The bulk of the fault surely lay with the bill itself. Hardly a model of post-partisan pragmatism, it was a kind of greatest-hits collection gathered up from two decades of Democratic pet projects. Assorted union giveaways, boosts to favored federal programs, regulatory fixes, grants to constituent lobbies and other sundry odds and ends were all shoved together into a mess of a bill, designed more to satisfy the longstanding demands of Democratic interest groups than to address the particulars of the economic crisis. Republicans felt no guilt in opposing it. Even some Democrats who voted for it were uncomfortable. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, explained the 11 Democratic defections by saying: "Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that"—suggesting, it seems, that the bill his boss sponsored was fiscally irresponsible.
The remarkable party unity on display on both sides was not a one-shot deal. The bumps in the Obama administration's start, from these legislative travails to a cabinet appointment process marked by controversy, have energized Republicans. Meanwhile, Democrats have united behind a "we won, so get over it" approach—refusing to bend until forced, even as Obama himself meets with Republicans and tries to charm them over drinks at the White House. Some bipartisan gestures have certainly gone over well—most notably the retention of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, which signaled continuity and moderation. But on the whole it seems clear that Washington is not about to heed Obama's call for a new post-partisan era in which, as he put it in his Inaugural Address, we might "proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
The persistence of partisanship is inevitable—yet it should not disappoint us. While bipartisanship has its virtues—it remains the best means of pushing through politically painful reforms—partisanship is not a vice. At its best, the partisan fray expresses the maturity of our political life; and even at its worst (which is to say, most of the time) it is a better way to govern ourselves than the pursuit at all costs of an elusive technocratic consensus.
The president's familiar pining for such a consensus expresses in part his desire to get his own way, of course, and as a liberal Democrat his way is itself partisan. But it also reaches back to an ancient republicanism that condemned parties in politics as a means by which permanent factions pursued their private interests instead of the public good. For as much as they are beholden to interest groups, however, large modern parties are really giving form to disagreements about the public good. They express a genuine difference of opinion about what is best for the whole. And precisely because that split runs very deep, our two major parties actually turn out to be pretty effective expressions of public views about a wide range of issues.
It is not a coincidence that people who believe in traditional values also tend to believe in a strong military: both views express an underlying premise about the intractability of human nature. It is not a coincidence that people who favor a large welfare state also tend to believe that diplomacy can resolve most global conflicts: both views express an underlying sense that most human problems are functions of an imperfect distribution of resources.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss