Is partisanship useful/productive/relevant?

[Pangloss]

I'm not asking if partisanship should be allowed, or if it is someone's right to be partisan. I'm asking if you think it is useful to society? Does it serve a useful purpose, or does it divide us further?

 

This is, of course, a science board, and in every other subject people are expected to rely on reason and evidence. But here we are asking if, when it comes to politics, reason and evidence can be set aside in favor of opposition based on perceptions and larger, more general affiliations (such as "Democrat" or "Republican"), rather than the specific pros and cons of each issue.

 

Is that a reasonable, productive approach for people to take? Does it make sense? Is it helpful to society, or harmful?

 

(Note: This is not a thread about the Politics sub-board, it's about politics, the subject in general.)

(Note2: Answers are confidential.)

[john5746]

Yes, country first.

[PhDP]

No, it's not productive. Well, I should add; it's not productive on an intellectual level, but it's probably inevitable, and maybe even productive on an organizational level.

 

But unfounded accusations of partisanship and political correctness are much worse.

 

Speaking of evidence, both political correctness and partisanship implies the person making the statement hasn't formed his opinions on his own, but copied something from a party/society. This kind of accusations require evidences, otherwise it's just another way to answer an opinion by a personal attack.

 

Answering a claim/opinion by accusations and speculation on motivations, certainly, that has nothing to do with science and reason.

Edited September 4, 2008 by PhDP

[Pangloss]

What about unfounded accusations of unfounded accusations of partisanship? (grin)

 

I just want to know what people think. From where I sit personally, you could say that this works out better for me if the majority answers "yes", because if the majority answers "no" then I have to eat crow for one of my favorite rants: partisanship and political correctness on this board. But if they answer "yes" then I get to rant about evidence to people who should already know if its import. So please, by all means, answer yes!

 

Or just forget all that and be honest. It's usually the best policy.

[Phi for All]

I think "Country First" can't really happen, because each person wanting what *they think* is best for the country is really no different from partisan ideology, it's just wearing more patriotic clothing.

 

Partisanship stinks, imo. It forces people to draw a single line where there should be many lines, and makes them think in terms of black and white instead of many shades of gray. It makes a great idea (a true country-first idea) more difficult to sell to one group if it came from the other. And too often, in a world where time is so precious, it limits access to a broader range of ideas - a partisan tends not to even listen to what the other side is saying, assuming it won't be acceptable.

 

Do partisan Republicans call their party to task for supporting illegal wiretaps which seem to run afoul of the anti-big government platform? Do partisan Democrats cry out when their party deregulates more of the media industry than any Republican administration ever has?

 

Political parties, like countries, should never automatically assume they deserve our trust and support. Like us, they need to earn it every day.

[waitforufo]

We live in an adversarial society. It was created to function that way. Look at our three branches of government. Look at how our courts function. Look at our freedom of speech. We derive great benefits from the adversarial nature of our society. All views get heard. All costs get weighed. It's not always friendly but it forces all of us to consider the opinions of others. I have no problem with partisans. I have no problem with single issue voters/politicians getting their full rant on. Sometimes it takes that to be heard. Sometimes we are just not listening.

 

I'm convinced that politics were much more partisan in the past. The difference today is that it is just not socially acceptable to hurt anyone's feelings under any conditions.

 

I think the greater problem with our politics today is that our two main parties are both fractured coalitions of single issue voters. Step on any member of your own coalition and they boycott the voting booth or throw there vote to some no chance third party candidate. Examples? For Republicans it's pro-life, guns, property rights, taxes …. For Democrats it's pro-choice, environment, unions … Nothing gets done because both of the parties are paralyzed. Again, neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to hurt any ones feelings within their coalitions or they will stay home an pout. So instead both political parties point at each other and say they are partisans, we need more reaching across the aisle.

[iNow]

Pangloss - The phrasing of your question is going to add noise to the result. I find partisanship very relevant (because it's so rampant), but I find it neither useful nor productive.

 

Speaking of partisanship, however... While definitely showing signs of venting, I can't help but agree with most of the points that Jason made over on the EvolutionBlog today:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/09/the_republican_convention.php

[bascule]

But here we are asking if, when it comes to politics, reason and evidence can be set aside in favor of opposition based on perceptions and larger, more general affiliations (such as "Democrat" or "Republican"), rather than the specific pros and cons of each issue.

 

How are perceptions incongruent with reason and evidence? Sounds like a false dichotomy.

 

When it comes to politics nobody's impartial, and they're always going to see the evidence through the lens of their own personal beliefs. In many cases nobody's right or wrong because so much is left to opinion. Both sides can have well-reasoned, evidence-based beliefs which completely contradict each other.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I read something recently that put a different twist on partisanship.

 

Essentially, it argued that if everyone were to think independently and rationally produce judgments about the issues, the system wouldn't work: there'd be so much disagreement on potential avenues to take. Instead, there are parties (which mostly "balance out" each other's viewpoints to keep things steady). The politically apathetic or the unaffiliated provide flexibility to the system by changing their votes freely between parties, while the parties themselves lend stability by keeping things from ever changing too rapidly.

[Pangloss]

How are perceptions incongruent with reason and evidence? Sounds like a false dichotomy.

 

When it comes to politics nobody's impartial, and they're always going to see the evidence through the lens of their own personal beliefs. In many cases nobody's right or wrong because so much is left to opinion. Both sides can have well-reasoned, evidence-based beliefs which completely contradict each other.

 

In many cases, sure. But clearly it's not a false dichotomy or you would have no problem with the anti-global warming crowd, or the creationists.

 

Obviously there is a distinct difference between deliberate distortion for purposes of making the other side wrong, and just seeing things differently when the evidence is unclear. We should be able to convince people to do something about global warming because the evidence is clear. But on other issues, such as determining the best point to begin sex education, or in situations where data is lacking and "common sense" becomes the guide, obviously people will see things differently. That's not partisanship.

 

So partisanship is real, it's wrong, and it's not a false dichotomy.

[iNow]

I think you may actually be trying to make a bigger point about ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

[Pangloss]

I read something recently that put a different twist on partisanship.

 

Essentially, it argued that if everyone were to think independently and rationally produce judgments about the issues, the system wouldn't work: there'd be so much disagreement on potential avenues to take. Instead, there are parties (which mostly "balance out" each other's viewpoints to keep things steady). The politically apathetic or the unaffiliated provide flexibility to the system by changing their votes freely between parties, while the parties themselves lend stability by keeping things from ever changing too rapidly.

 

It's an interesting point. For the most part I probably wouldn't agree with it -- I see the parties as detrimental. But I have to admit it's a compelling argument, not the least of reasons being that not everyone is so interested in politics as we are.

 

I got an email from "Barack Obama" tonight that might illustrate the point:

 

Why would the Republicans spend a whole night of their convention attacking ordinary people?

 

The rest of the email goes on to talk about perfectly salient issues and there's nothing really wrong with any of that, but I think statements like the above are needlessly partisan. You don't have to distort you opponent or be hypocritical about your own actions (both of which are in the quote above) in order to make a substantive comment or even criticize your opponent's policies.

 

I see that whole "failed policies of the Bush administration" meme the same way. It's not that I don't think many Bush policies have failed, I just think it's a huge mistake to play that as The Reason To Vote For Obama. It's absolutely BEGGING for the opposition to do the exact same thing for the next eight years.

 

Obama can only do so much. If we really want to get rid of partisanship in this country and bring people together, we're going to have to give up on this notion that the other side is always wrong.

[iNow]

The rest of the email goes on to talk about perfectly salient issues and there's nothing really wrong with any of that, but I think statements like the above are needlessly partisan. You don't have to distort you opponent or be hypocritical about your own actions (both of which are in the quote above) in order to make a substantive comment or even criticize your opponent's policies.

 

In an ideal world, or in a vacuum, sure... but that's not where we live. People are going to the voting booth, and have 2 choices (unless they waste a vote on the 3rd guy). They need to have as many lines of demarcation between the two as possible, and it's important for each party to drive those differences home.

 

If you go to the voting booth, and you have the mindset "It doesn't matter, they're both the same," then clearly all of the campaigning was a collasal waste of time, money, and attention.

[Pangloss]

Sounds like two-wrongs reasoning to me. It's wrong that Republicans are partisan, so to counter that we need to be partisan as well. I respect your opinion but I'm just not going to buy that kind of pessimism. I *know* we can do better than that.

 

People are stupid but they're also there, watching, paying some kind of attention. All you have to do is get them on board with the idea. And given congress' 9% approval rating, it sounds to me like they are PRIME for a non-partisanship argument.

 

Besides, that's most of Obama's appeal with most Americans, guy. People aren't flocking to his side because he's hooked up with George Soros and MoveOn.org!

[iNow]

Sounds like two-wrongs reasoning to me. It's wrong that Republicans are partisan, so to counter that we need to be partisan as well.

 

You're missing my point.

 

People are forced to choose between two options.

The people need to know the difference between them.

It's not "two wrongs make a right" and it's not even saying that "one side did it so the other has to as well." It's just that we're asked to choose, and there must be some basis on which to make that choice.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

How about this. Compare and contrast these two speeches:

 

• 
  
• John Kerry at last week's Democratic Convention

 

 

And these two:

 

• 
  
• Mike Huckabee at last night's Republican Convention - Part 1
  
• Mike Huckabee at last night's Republican Convention - Part 2

 

 

h/t - Blog Around the Clock

Edited September 5, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

You're missing my point.

 

People are forced to choose between two options.

The people need to know the difference between them.

 

I see what you mean, pardon me.

 

If you go to the voting booth, and you have the mindset "It doesn't matter, they're both the same," then clearly all of the campaigning was a collasal waste of time, money, and attention.

 

I agree that people need to know the difference between the two parties, but the difference between the two parties ISN'T that one lies and the other does not, or that one does what it says it's going to do and the other does not, or that one is always good and the other is always evil.

 

I think this is what people mean when they say things like "don't tell me what Bush did wrong, tell me what YOUR plan is". Obama HAS a plan, but it seems like all he talks about is what Bush did wrong. This is detrimental, not helpful.

 

Just look at all the rhetoric about how McCain is like Bush. What the frack difference does that make? Don't you want OBAMA to be like Bush, when it comes to things that Bush did RIGHT? If you just categorically dismiss everything Bush did as wrong, then you're just setting yourself up to either contradict yourself and open yourself up to pointless (but well-grounded) criticism later when you do something that Bush also did, or you can't do what Bush did, even though it was the right thing to do, because Bush did it. How can that possibly make sense?

[iNow]

How can that possibly make sense?

You obviously have no understanding of marketing, salesmanship, or even social psychology.

[Pangloss]

Lol, I hear ya. But seriously, don't you think there's a point to be made about non-partisanship and Obama? Or do you think he's just trying to sell something to the people who don't know any better?

 

You keep telling me you're not a partisan, so shouldn't you be on my side with this? I know you judge individual issues individually -- I've seen you do it, even siding with opponents on a smaller, side-concern. What is that, if it isn't non-partisan reasoning?

[iNow]

You keep telling me you're not a partisan, so shouldn't you be on my side with this?

Do you see the irony about saying that you have a "side" when you're point is arguing against partisanship?

 

 

What is that, if it isn't non-partisan reasoning?

Partisanship never factors into the mix. It's not me supporting a side because I agree all out with their ideology or because I associate myself with a group or label and see that person as part of my "ingroup." I instead am being just reasonable (no non-partisan qualifier required), using my skills of critical thinking to come to a conclusion based on the merits of that position.

 

 

 

To your previous question, let's say you marry a woman. She's educated, successful, helps around the house, and contributes to the bills every so often. However, she also cheats on you, maxxes out your credit cards, wrecks the cars, and gives you an STD. I'd say it's fair to call her a bad wife, and to say that any of her friends are not worthy of trust or respect since they agree with her 95% of the time, and I further feel it would be fine to say these things without the caveat that "she also had some good qualities."

[bascule]

I think partisanship can be incredibly destructive, especially when practiced in the way the Rove brought to the Republican Party. The party leadership puts aside both facts and any will of their own to parrot Rove's talking points. Separate sets of talking points are crafted for both the news media and the blogosphere. The entire party speaks with one voice, which is an immensely powerful for convincing the general public, but also a rather insidious tool to increase party power. Look at the sheer amount of jargon they've injected into the political dialogue. We now have "country first", thanks talking points! And let's not forget flip-flopper... or elitist! The Republican Party has the news media all speaking their language, thanks in no small part to Fox News and Republican bloggers.

 

While I'm a registered Democrat, I disagree with the party's platform and legislation in a number of regards. I will only support the party on issues I ideologically support. I don't read any literature the party distributes and am only really registered so I can vote in the primary. That said I'd be similarly opposed to Democrats parroting party talking points, and I'm sure that thing goes on to a certain degree. But the way the Republicans do it is right up in your face.

[CDarwin]

I haven't read all of the responses so I might be talking off conversation, but...

 

I think there should be partisan and non-partisan (or less so) parts of government, and that's legitimate. Executives, by and large, should be non-partisan. Departments and agencies less so still. But I have no problem with partisan legislatures. Factions will form in any event, and at least while those factions are under the aegis of party politics, their functionings are clear and transparent and they are forced to adopt and support a reasonably consistent platform to present to their constituents every election. They also provide a framework (the whip) to coordinate politicians with possibly differing interests toward productive goals. Less would get done in Congress (or Parliament, or the Diet, or whatever) without parties.

[ecoli]

CDarwin - that seems look a good argument AGAINST electing a congressperson to the office of president. It seems to me that a state executive would have more experience working across party lines.

[CDarwin]

Well, that assumes that state executives behave as in my ideal. But I see your point. I would have more confidence in Gov. Phil Bredesen, say, to be able to balance partisanship better than Barack Obama from day one, but he's not on the ballot and might be inferior to Obama in other ways.

[john5746]

CDarwin - that seems look a good argument AGAINST electing a congressperson to the office of president. It seems to me that a state executive would have more experience working across party lines.

 

Yep, a governor from Texas who became President made that same argument. Even with the country united as never seen since the 50's, thanks to 9/11, he blew it and did the "my way or highway".

[ParanoiA]

And aren't we supposed to be parsing partisanship from party interests? I don't see a problem with parties, I see a problem with partisanship. Or any other mentallity that undermines honest intellect and problem solving - mainly through the oversimplistic asthetically pleasing conclusion that we = good, they = bad. We = right, they = wrong.

 

Even that's not what is actually all that bad, it's the competitive emotion that we allow to override our greater sensibility as a result of this group based bias. It's group-think basically. And neither side thinks they're guilty of it - and even more funny, no one claims to belong to either of them. Well, except for bascule. No one else I know in my personal or internet life will admit their full tilt partisanship.

 

And guess who profits from this? Follow the money. The dems and pubs always have plenty of money to participate in the spot light, whether they're winning or losing. It's like a sporting event to these people. And the partisan sheeple play along with their heads full of fog.

 

CDarwin - that seems look a good argument AGAINST electing a congressperson to the office of president. It seems to me that a state executive would have more experience working across party lines.

 

Another point for the executive prerequisite column. It could be argued that a state executive is in a position that potentially, depending on local government representation, requires working above partisanship in order to execute law.

 

I guess, at this point, I'm curious as to what a congressman does that we could consider as experience toward an executive position. I suppose, management and people skills, running a staff - typical management stuff it would seem to me.

 

But what does a congressman do that a state executive does not, that contributes directly to the skill set of executive office? How about to the national executive office?

 

Yep, a governor from Texas who became President made that same argument. Even with the country united as never seen since the 50's, thanks to 9/11, he blew it and did the "my way or highway".

 

But that's disingenuous to his choices. Seriously, you're either for the war or against it, ultimately, by its nature. How can you work across party lines to "kind of" wage war as a compromise to the neo-cons, yet "kind of" not wage war as a compromise to the democrats?

 

I realize you didn't specifically point out the war, but that seems to be the quintessential anti-bush catalyst for all things wrong with the current administration. Just about all of the things that divide us so much about Bush trace back to the war on terror and how it is waged.

 

Again, an executive doesn't have the privilege to wait a generation for everyone to argue everything out, once and for all, they have to make a decision and those decisions are not always going to be conducive to bipartisan compromise. Nature of the beast kind of thing.

 

That said, Bush was full of crap. I don't believe he ever intended to reach across party lines for anything except conservative ideas. That was salesmanship, just like we're seeing from Obama. As long as the democrats agreed with him, well sure, bipartisan politics all the way.

 

McCain might be the only genuine bipartisan running - and I'm only giving him that much due to how strong he's selling the point, and the evidence provided by a republican base that can't stand him because of it.

Edited September 5, 2008 by ParanoiA
multiple post merged