Partisanship Is Good

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.

I completely disagree with this article. As George Washington forewarned in his farewell address, party politics have divided this country in half. The fact that people immediately judge other individuals based solely on party affiliation proves that we are past the point of a ???healthy society??? to a society based on prejudice, something that we as a nation have fought for years to overcome.

Levin writes that ???It is not a coincidence that people who believe in traditional values also tend to believe in a strong military...??? So is it a coincidence that the same people who are willing to kill other soldiers in battle are the very same who are unwilling to abort an embryo?

As a linkage institution, parties are supposed to connect the people to the government, but they are no longer designed to inform the public about important issues. The fundamental goal of a political party is to be elected to gain control of the government. Neither major party is focused on ???the public good??? so much as it is on power. This is proven by the ???with us or against us??? attitude of each party.

We all know that the GOP has traditionally supported tax cuts, but when Obama proposed just this, Republicans felt obliged to object solely because our president???s party affiliation. These sacrifices of personal politics for party politics further demonstrates the damage that partisanship has done to our country.

Lordy, grow up! Both parties suck - and that was Obama's "secret" weapon. Shucks, I like and respect McLain, but nobody stays and prospers within the system without selling their soul, due to all the folks willing and eager to kiss their hineys. Dems/Rebps - sameo/sameo! Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's an age-old question - throw the bastards out and put new bastards in? So, do you believe in term-limits? Spread the wealth? Maybe I can't glom onto so much if I have only one term. Or maybe, knowing I get only one term, I get while the getting is good, and let the devil deal with the results.
Frigging hooray for partisanship (?) - BITE ME! I was a Barry Goldwater fan before I could vote - as well as eventually a local union president. I do appreciate the fringes, because they bring up articles that the center may not care to discuss, (And for God's [and our] sake - don't stop). But for God's sake, and yours and mine, don't be a frigging Republican - nor a frigging Democrat.
Partisanship is 25%, getting along (working the system) is 25%, being real, honest, caring - doing one's best - is 51%, And I don't give a damn which party you adore, neither is doing more than 50/101ths of what they should. Meaning, they both suck, both acheive less than half of what they should. That's why there is all this hate and discontent., and inefficienty.
There is no solution! You can pick a side, and rant and rave, or step back and 'judge". But as sorry as it is, "vox poupli, vox deio" {total mispelling - Latin was 40+ years ago},ain't real no more. Latin being poor, I got to say it in English:[Really] the voice of money is the voice of the people.. That's sorry - but real.

Mr. Levin, I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the responses to your essay. On the whole, do these display healthy partisanship, or childish behavior?

Mr. Levin offers a pleasant reading of the competing views of human nature that characterize our politics, and suggests that President Obama is naïve to not recognize how ???the partisan fray expresses the maturity of our political life.??? I do not object to partisanship, and I don???t believe Obama does either. I do object to childish arguments posing as partisan difference.
I am unaware of any evidence through their practice of government that suggests Republicans take their own partisan arguments seriously. If they did subscribe to ???traditional values??? they would not nominate as vice president a man who believed ???deficits don???t matter???. If they supported a strong military they would not decry the circumstance of having to ???go to war with the military you have???, while avoiding the hard choices necessary to prevent their successor the trial of prosecuting ongoing conflicts with the military he has left.
The faction that opposes taxing and spending with a program of borrowing and spending apparently does not take its own arguments seriously, and I cannot understand why any should pay those arguments respect. It is childish to suggest otherwise, and our politics will only mature when both factions apply the lessons learned through the maturing process of governance to their politics.
I do fear that our politics will remain less mature than necessary as long as one faction prefers a program of wishful thinking, unequal to our situation, and undeserving of much (re)evaluation. What seems to ???energize??? Republicans most is the opportunity to object without making governing choices that can be evaluated. Can our politics really mature if one faction responds to the failure of its programs (and in Mr. Greenspan???s view, if not that of all Republicans, the failure of his ???world view???) by applying the child???s method of taking his ball and going home? Does partisanship mean anything if one faction finds its voice only in opposition, then abdicates its principles in governing? If those principles cannot be successfully applied in government are they mature?
Mr. Obama correctly reads that politics as childish and unequal to our situation. I hope, and I believe he does as well, that his opposition will use the lessons offered by its failures to mature a program adequate to the challenges we share. The renewed (if unrefreshed) ???energy??? of the right suggests his hope may be too audacious???

by AS - How do you write a column about the stimulus package while barely mentioning the only reason it existed at all: the sharpest depression since the 1930s? Yuval Levin managed it. How do you write it without mentioning well over $300 billion in tax cuts from a Democratic president (far more than anything the Republican actually proposed last fall)? Levin managed that too. He also managed to argue that the two parties represent deep, stable and coherent views about human nature, and the relationship of the citizen to the state. The Republicans, one infers, represent fiscal responsibility, the freedom of the individual vis-a-vis the government, the resilience of human nature, and prudent strength in foreign policy.
Hmmm. Which party added over $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities, turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and endorsed indefinite nation-building at a simply staggering cost in two of the most intractably divided non-countries in the world? Which party asserted "near-dictatorial" powers for the executive, the priority of the will of the leader over the rule of law, and a mantra, in the words of the most "conservative" vice-president in memory, that "deficits don't matter." Which party described prohibitions against torture "quaint" and presided over the most reckless, and irresponsible period in American finance since the 1920s? Ah, yes, I remember ... Levin's party. And Levin's president. And Levin's vice-president.
Quite a racket, that partisanship, don't you think?

i wish the world were as easily understood as Lervin makes it seem to be with this article. What a joke. Where was Levin when Bush pushed through the massive Medicare package? Did he gripe about that? Or the wasting of billions of dollars from the civilian, Iraqi and military grifters in Iraq?

And who here thinks a sit-down with the likes of Rush Limbaugh would be productive? Please. Rush is digging the grave of the Republican Party with every syllable that comes out of his cynical, lying mouth.

Yuval Levin -

That is an excellent article which explains the issue and importance of partisanship in American politics and government!

But do you realize that, by publishing your informative article, you will probably be one of the targets for restrictive control under the democrat government's intended Unfairness Censorship Doctrine?

Healthy competition is the cornerstone of our democracy or any democracy. So, Obama's purposeful effort of bi-partisanship has always ringed shallow to me. Also, in our party politics, I have always thought a leader should first take into consideration of his loyal constituencies, which I don???t mean to be ideology-driven. Obama should fill out his cabinet with capable democrats. The only reason he should fill out any position with a Republican is because that individual???s qualifications surpasses anyone else. Bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship is only a stand of a politician. Obama has very quickly lost his appeal to me. He is a typical politician packaged by his brand of Change. Where is the change when he has filled out his cabinet with the same ???old??? pool of Washington insiders?

My reference was to a previous comment and not to the author......

To paraphrase, Obama's idea of bipartisanship was wrong also.

I cannot believe the amount of people that think we still have a two party system in this country.

None of these people care about us or know what we go through on a day to day basis. They live in a totally different world. While we are bickering about Dems did this or Reps didnt do this (or for those of you who just tuned in from ESPN my team is better than your team) ALL THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS "HOW DO I GET RELECTED TO THIS SWEET JOB?"

Unless and until someone freezes salaries/benefits in Congress (and for retired members as well) eliminate ALL unecessary travel, install term limits I will not trust or believe a word from any of them.

Partisanship does not remotely resemble what is happening now. What we have now is the need created in the wake of Watergate for a way to energize a new base for the republican party. The idea that they were going to be able to get elected by waving the "rich white guy" flag any longer made them turn to a time-honored tactic: fear. How do you get middle class working people to vote for a financial theory that gives to the rich at the expense of those same middle class voters. You use fear of color or creed, fear of religious diversity, fear of difference of morality and fear of being labled with those you are told to hate. You simply polarize everyone into neat little boxes. You are then either this or that, there is no in between. You have to select a side and stay there for fear of being labled. The most famous lable is "liberal". That means you are grouped into a bunch of pro abortion, pro-gay, pro spending, pro welfare, pro immigrant Hollywood elitists that want to cause the downfall of America. Or, you can be "conservative". Picture now Ward and June Cleaver and the perfect 1950's household of god-fearing, salt of the earth types that wave the flag, go to work everyday, attend Christian churches and show up in Rockwell paintings. With the polarization of America, those are the only two choices. Be a godless liberal or a patriotic American. You make them choose sides based on anything else but finance. The New World Order republicans have to cover up that part of their agenda. But, the same fallacies that have always erupted with supply side economics raised their ugly heads once more. You cannot drain the middle for the benefit of the top 1%. You cannot allow the financial system to police itself. You cannot grant taxcuts and wage war at the same time. There is nothing free about a marketplace that can be manipulated by the monopolies. It finally hit home and all of those patriotic conservatives that supported the party of Mom, God and Apple Pie were sitting at home jobless. Those same politicians that benefitted from the blind allegiance of these people cannot change their song. They are addicts that don't realize that they are responsible for attrocities that cannot be fixed without suffering and pain. Another generation witnessed that the core beliefs of the GOP were not good for America's everyday people back in the late 20's as they took that whirlwind ride into the abyss. This generation has had to re-learn that. The remaining republican talking heads will continue to play the game of division because that is all they have left and really it is all they ever had. Even though the republicans were brought into the fight they CANNOT vote with the Democrats. They HAVE to oppose the enemy they have created even if that enemy has the support of a majority of America. Funny, but doesn't that make THEM the enemy according to their own lables?

Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.

"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.

I RATHER CALLED THEM A BUNCH OF RE-PIGS then Pork

"Basic disputes" are one thing, ideological differences are a given,but deliberately sabotaging your country is considered to be treason! What the republicans are doing now is not partisanship is is obstructionism! It is good ole fashioned Newt Gingrichish hypocriisy! The rebublicans have a vested interest in trying to bring about our President's (and by extension, our country's)failure. It is the ONLY way they can retake control of the country,the one they screwed up so very badly when they DID control it for the past 8 years! Do they really think we've forgotten who got us into this mess! These are the same Senators who for the last 8 years doubled the nation's debt and failed to vote against a single SPENDING bill! So, yes...the republican's are not only acting childish, but are acting hypocritical, narcissistic, and unpatriotic as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling objectionist behavior partisanship is a bit odd.

To say it "energized the Republican party" is to ignore the fact public support for the stimulus bill rose to 59% after weeks at 52% according to Gallup.
People like Boehner may feel energized because they gave the President notice they were united in objection to anything he proposed. But it is likely to reduce the Republican Party to even smaller numbers in upcoming elections for many years.

Americans are becoming more politically aware than ever before as it becomes more evident just how great what the government does or does not do has an impact on their lives.

Continuing the Bush tax cuts mantra shows just how limited in creative intellect these Republicans are, and how out of touch they are with the greater number of Americans.

Boehner whose real agenda is the opposition to and elimination of "entitlements" is strong evidence of just how small and self centered Republican thinking is.

Opposition to the food stamp program, a program designed so ensure people do not actually starve to death in America, while calling himself a "compassionate" is ludicrous at best.

The opposition to extending unemployment benefits to those on the brink of losing everything, again shows the disrespect and lack of regard for the economic wellbeing of millions of Americans.

But the unending effort to attack Social Security is the killer.
The very reason Social Security is in trouble is Reagan removed the protections for access and use of what is a significant source of ultimate survival for a great number of Americans when they reach the point they are no longer able to work.

People like Boehner and his ilk can ignore the Governments culpability in taking those funds leaving nothing more than an IOU in its place. He now wants to essentially end Social Security to hide the fact they have raped that program, economically speaking.

What the article promotes as effective expressions of public views; is what I call a very dangerous obstructionist agenda for the economic well being for as many as 80 to 90% of Americans.

Its interesting that the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy is almost equal to the dollar amount that has disappeared in Social Security funds.
In short the old age income that Social Security represents is now in the pockets of the wealthy and people like Boehner want to keep it that way.
Any attempt to recover that money or to address the issue is now "redistribution of wealth" as if it were not exactly that the first time.

The problem with Levin's premise is that it ignores the fact that agreement was not reached. This was not the product of tension between opposing sides bringing about a solution. It was an example of the near hatred that both partiys' bases have for each other.

There was productive tension until Newt Gingrich's "revolution," Since 1994, it's been a "my way or the highway" approach to politics. Not at all healthy.

I believe that the Democrats could have scrapped the original House bill and simply increased and extended GWB's tax cuts for the wealthy and, because it was written by a Democrat, Boehner and Cantor would have attacked. It's not healthy - it's toxic.