Is partisanship useful/productive/relevant?

[Phi for All]

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.

Like bascule, I register Democrat in order to vote in the primaries, but I don't follow the party platform enough to call myself a partisan Democrat. The kicker, of course, is that there are really only two parties, so when the arguments start flying, virtually everyone polarizes into the two main camps and even though you may offer up some non-partisan solutions, you've already been labeled.

 

I wonder if partisanship is behind the political tactic I hate the most, when the pols assess their own weaknesses and then accuse their opponents of those same weaknesses. It makes the other guy look bad when he fights back with, "No, *you're* weak on foreign policy!" I also hate all the unchecked "facts" that get thrown around, especially at the conventions, where partisanship is going to keep many people from checking those facts on their own. Partisans don't want to hear anything bad about their "side".

[Mr Skeptic]

I voted yes... It is useful to the political parties, which is why they promote it so strongly. However, for everyone else it is horrid.

 

Also, the two party system is a result of our voting system. Other voting systems to not result in two political parties.

[Pangloss]

Sounds to me like some of the yes votes didn't understand the question. Based on the tone of the replies it's clear that "no" is the universally agreed-upon answer.

 

And aren't we supposed to be parsing partisanship from party interests? I don't see a problem with parties' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Well put.

[john5746]

Sounds to me like some of the yes votes didn't understand the question. Based on the tone of the replies it's clear that "no" is the universally agreed-upon answer.

 

The poll is 5 to 4, so we have one swing voter.

 

I try not to be partisan and find it gets in the way when discussing/debating particular issues. But, it is useful to bring about passion for one side or the other. If someone votes either democrat or republican, but really agrees more with the libertarian or green candidate, then he is casting a partisan vote, IMO.

[Pangloss]

No, clearly what we have is something more like 8 or 9 "no" votes. The problem lies only in the fact that the question could not be adequately explained on the subject line.

 

The number is still not statistically significant, though. I was really hoping for a larger response. The thread has had 48 views, but I guess that counts returning posters.

[foodchain]

I think that nonpartisanship offers more of a benefit when it comes down to use of time and resources. I personally would not like to work somewhere under the constant influence of a managerial struggle for open positions, in that sense I could not agree with turning political things into more or less some constant territorial dispute. Yet I think such a condition is to contemporary to change all to quickly, more so that such is forefront in many ways when it comes to voting, such as being a red or blue state sadly due to the electoral system going over the individual in some social context.

 

I think during the crisis of war for instance everything involved with the politics of such times would have benefited if politics was not so concerned with fighting amongst itself. I mean you can vote for various people to be senators in congress and vote for presidents but after that you deal with the politics of such for an extended period of time really barring huge legal issues, massive civil unrest or other such acts.

 

I think this is important because our current government has such a low approval rating and under such distress could adversarial behavior amongst politicians itself have a huge impact on decision making? Such as politicians of different political groups then becoming compelled to act in part or have motivation to act on behavior benefiting of that group? I think such would only serve really to undermine political behavior that is purely beneficial to say the nation.

Edited September 7, 2008 by foodchain
mistake

[PhDP]

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

 

But seriously, you say that people here are expected to rely on reason and evidence, yet you often answered opinions (even evidences) by throwing accusations you could never justify with either reason or evidences.

 

It's ironic, because it's actually quite hard to know if someone has formed his opinion independently, or is just being politically correct/partisan. But when you get an accusation instead of a counterargument, I think it is fair to question the motivations.

 

Just as you'll likely get a lot of "you're racist" if you discuss intelligence and "race", you will also get a lot of "you're guilty of political correctness" if you try to argue against Philippe Rushton (in fact, he accuses his opponents of political correctness on his website). Fair to say, the former are truly guilty of political correctness, and the latter is a racist (for real), but in both cases I think we have serious evidences.

Edited September 18, 2008 by PhDP

[bascule]

Sounds to me like some of the yes votes didn't understand the question.

 

I think whether partisanship is useful and whether it's productive are two different questions entirely.

 

The Republican Party has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is quite useful.

[Pangloss]

I think whether partisanship is useful and whether it's productive are two different questions entirely.

 

They are if you're partisan. If you're not partisan, and you understand the problems that partisanship pose, then they are not.

 

The Republican Party has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is quite useful.

 

No more so than Democrats.

 

But seriously, you say that people here are expected to rely on reason and evidence, yet you often answered opinions (even evidences) by throwing accusations you could never justify with either reason or evidences.

 

So it's okay that they don't rely on reason and evidence? Because I (in your opinion) threw an accusation I couldn't justify?

 

Interesting reasoning. I believe we have a word for that. Something about two of something not equaling one of another? Something like that.

[bascule]

No more so than Democrats.

 

I really don't think so. Call me "partisan" but the coordination with which the Republicans push out talking points and get major party players repeating talking points vastly trumps anything the Democrats are doing.

[Pangloss]

I actually agree with that assessment as being the current state of events. And I think you've already agreed with me that Democrats have behaved that way in the past, so it's perhaps a moot issue. And I think the polls support that view (as contrasted with the polls on Clinton at the end of his presidency, for example).

 

But I feel compelled, perhaps through my own particular brand of anti-partisan partisanship, to refresh my warning about being careful what we wish for. I remember thinking that things would improve when Republicans came to power in 1994, and how disappointing it was when it turned into just a great big opportunity to bash and harass Democrats. Many on the left don't want progress. They want revenge. Those people need to be reigned in.

 

Some examples of Joe Biden throwing out distortive and truth-stretching talking points on the campaign trail:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stretching_with_biden.html

 

Biden used partial quotes to support his charge that McCain wouldn't help "small borrowers" suffering in the mortgage crisis but would "fight for those that lost their ... real estate investments." In fact, McCain's full quote said he would also fight for those who "lost their jobs" and "savings," and he has proposed assistance for homeowners.

 

He said McCain called Sen. Webb's GI Bill proposal "too generous." McCain never used those words. He did support a less-costly version of the bill.

 

# Biden repeated several other talking points that we've previously critiqued for their spin, including the accusation that McCain would give $4 billion a year in tax cuts to oil companies.

 

I don't mean to make a straw man, though -- I don't think it's necessarily incorrect to say that Republicans are worse right now. Maybe they are, but at the very least it's a legitimate point of view (not necessarily partisan). This (above) just goes to show that Democrats can be every bit as bad as Republicans, even right now.

[iNow]

You think Joe Biden's inaccuracies that you referenced are "every bit as bad as Republicans?" Interesting. I disagree. I think those are minor and trivial compared to the web of lies being spun by republicans right now.

 

How's that for partisan?

[bascule]

I don't mean to make a straw man, though -- I don't think it's necessarily incorrect to say that Republicans are worse right now. Maybe they are, but at the very least it's a legitimate point of view (not necessarily partisan). This (above) just goes to show that Democrats can be every bit as bad as Republicans, even right now.

 

I think the difference is where you can catch individual Democrats preaching lies and gross distortions, with Republicans they're distributed en masse and repeated by multiple high level members of the party.

 

"Drill here, drill now" (pay less) comes to mind

[Pangloss]

You think Joe Biden's inaccuracies that you referenced are "every bit as bad as Republicans?" Interesting. I disagree. I think those are minor and trivial compared to the web of lies being spun by republicans right now.

 

What's worse coming from official Republican statements at the moment?

 

 

I think the difference is where you can catch individual Democrats preaching lies and gross distortions' date=' with Republicans they're distributed en masse and repeated by multiple high level members of the party.

 

"Drill here, drill now" (pay less) comes to mind[/quote']

 

Never heard of the Democratic Rapid Response Team? Some of the emails they spout are pretty bad.

 

I'll post some Howard Dean emails when I get home. It's pretty much the same thing that the RNC spouts, guys -- I'm on the mailing lists for both parties. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

I'm home now but I don't have any Dean emails saved. But since we're apparently going to draw a comparison here, I'll save up some Republican and Democratic emails and we'll do a little comparing. Could be interesting -- you guys could well be right, for all I know.

[bascule]

Never heard of the Democratic Rapid Response Team? Some of the emails they spout are pretty bad.

 

I'll post some Howard Dean emails when I get home. It's pretty much the same thing that the RNC spouts, guys -- I'm on the mailing lists for both parties. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

I'm home now but I don't have any Dean emails saved. But since we're apparently going to draw a comparison here, I'll save up some Republican and Democratic emails and we'll do a little comparing. Could be interesting -- you guys could well be right, for all I know.

 

Well it's one thing to say "The Democrats have talking points memos too!" But how much are Democratic talking points injected into the political dialogue compared to Republican talking points? How often are high level Democrats parroting them word-for-word? Among other things you have Fox News parroting Republican talking points with no similar sized "news" agency doing the same thing with the Democratic talking points. And there's the incessant catch phrases that become a normal part of the political vernacular, things like: elitist, stay the course/cut and run, flip-flopper, drill here drill now, country first.

 

The closest things I can even think of from the Democrats are "change" and "hope", although watching the RNC they sure did their part to ensure "change" wasn't a Democratic exclusive.

[Pangloss]

Well it's one thing to say "The Democrats have talking points memos too!" But how much are Democratic talking points injected into the political dialogue compared to Republican talking points?

 

Oy vey, not the old "we have to yell louder because the stupid people are only listening to the Republicans!" argument. Prove it. I could have sworn the last two presidential elections were won by a hair. But hey, maybe I was smokin' somethin'.

 

Like I've said countless times in the past, the conservative talk radio forum is more popular than liberal alternatives. But liberals have the majority of the press and Hollywood in their favor. It's a wash, bro. It just doesn't seem that way to you because of your present bias towards one particular side.

 

At any rate, no matter how badly you need it to be so, two wrongs still doesn't make a right. No matter how bad Republicans cross the line, Democrats don't get a free pass, and vice-versa. It's exactly that kind of thinking, that kind of offset nonsense, that's gotten us into this mess.

[bascule]

Like I've said countless times in the past, the conservative talk radio forum is more popular than liberal alternatives. But liberals have the majority of the press and Hollywood in their favor. It's a wash, bro.

 

Here in the 21st century there's this thing called 24 hour news networks, and one of them may as well be an appendage of the Republican party. The others... you can argue a certain degree of bias, but nothing as pronounced as Fox News.

 

Newspapers are dying, bro. And even so: The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post... both owned by News Corporation.

 

At any rate, no matter how badly you need it to be so, two wrongs still doesn't make a right. No matter how bad Republicans cross the line, Democrats don't get a free pass, and vice-versa. It's exactly that kind of thinking, that kind of offset nonsense, that's gotten us into this mess.

 

When was I ever arguing that?

[Pangloss]

At any rate, no matter how badly you need it to be so, two wrongs still doesn't make a right. No matter how bad Republicans cross the line, Democrats don't get a free pass, and vice-versa. It's exactly that kind of thinking, that kind of offset nonsense, that's gotten us into this mess.

When was I ever arguing that?

 

You make that argument frequently, in quotes like these:

I think whether partisanship is useful and whether it's productive are two different questions entirely.

 

Call me "partisan" but the coordination with which the Republicans push out talking points and get major party players repeating talking points vastly trumps anything the Democrats are doing.

 

I understand the sentiment, but it's still wrong. And the examples you gave above are easily offset by examples of media bias and information outlets coming from the left. Not only is it a wash, but it's demonstrably a wash based on the fact that the elections have been so close.

 

The problem isn't lack of ability or outlets for Democrats/liberals to get the message out. It just is not. And it's really unfortunate that so many Democrats and Republicans seem to feel that "the problem" is that we're not getting enough "message" shouted into our faces. I think that says a LOT about what the REAL problem is.

[PhDP]

So it's okay that they don't rely on reason and evidence? Because I (in your opinion) threw an accusation I couldn't justify?.

 

That must be a joke, I said it was OK if someone didn't rely on reason ?

 

Where ?

 

You perfectly know what I mean; no matter how wrong an argument is, throwing accusation is not very constructive, especially if you're only doing that; throwing an accusation with no argument.

 

You talk about reason, then try to answer this; what's the purpose of answering to a claim, or an opinion, by an accusation of the type "it's partisan" or "it's political correctness" ? Even if you're answering to an irrational, partisan, politically correct liberal, what on earth can be achieved by labeling his/her opinions instead of confronting them ?

 

Well, I don't know for sure if you can or can't justify the accusations you throw, but you certainly used the easy road (i.e: accusation + no argument) in a number of occasions. If you can justify your accusations, then justify them with counterarguments instead of playing the "PC" or "partisan" cards.

 

Still, I can't believe we have to discuss the validity of personal accusations on a science forum, it should be obvious for everyone how sterile this kind of tactic is. We're not in kindergarten for jebus' sake.

[Pangloss]

I do confront the issues, Phil. And if that's the better way to go, then why are you using a personal attack instead of confronting the issue of this thread? If you have something to say about this issue, say it and leave me out of it. Otherwise I invite you to take up whatever your problem with me is in PM.

[PhDP]

I have no problem with your arguments, or with you, but I'm seriously annoyed by the method and tactic you often use. Like the one you just used; repeating my argument instead of providing an answer.

 

It's certainly not a personal attack, I never speculated about your motives or used negative labels against you, I only argue against your methods.

 

...beside, it has a lot to do with the topic. Partisanship is not only a true phenomenon (and problem, IMO), but it's also a concept which is being used to commit a fallacy; an appeal to motives.

[Realitycheck]

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?

 

Absolutely not. As I have stated before, people get affiliated with bandwagons that don't often meet all of the criteria that they personally agree with, but tradeoffs are made for favors. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, happens all day, every day, till veiled hatred fills both sides. Whatever happened to independent voting? This is the way it was supposed to be. So what's the point? They should all be sent a postcard that says, "THINK FOR YOURSELF, THAT'S WHAT YOUR PAID TO DO."