Redefining Partisanship
The Facts on the Ground
- Talking the "bipartisanship" talk is the new fashion.
- Walking the "bipartisanship" walk has not caught up to fashion
The Editorial
One of the first articles posted on this blog was a call for non-partisanship - that was a lofty goal sought for and advised by George Washington, but soundly rejected by his successors (Adams and Jefferson) to the highest office in the land. After 225 years of moving down the path of partisan politics, perhaps non-partisanship is not a realistic goal - people will always act in their interests and group together with like minded individuals. This seems to be hard-wired into us, and may be one of the limitations separating us from the Divine, if you believe in that. It's a rather disappointing answer to a noble need.
In an interview this morning dealing with his healthcare program in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsome outlined his approach to the problem of not getting a satisfactory answer to the problems facing him. The answer he received for how do we accomplish health insurance for everyone in SF was that you can't - too many regulations to meet, too much opposition. Instead of kicking the can down the road for the next politician to solve, he changed the question to how can we provide healthcare for everyone in SF - his answer was by dropping the insurance out of the equations, and providing direct healthcare to his citizens. Time will tell if this approach works or not, but it does give perspective on how to deal with the issue of partisanship that America keeps fighting with.
So we change the question - how do we use partisanship to move the country forward? This will require some creative thinking and a bit of a leap of faith. For the leap of faith, we must assume that MOST people are not fire-breathing monsters out to destroy the country (either liberal or conservative), and most want the country, and themselves to do well. The polarization that we are experiencing now is a result of ideology trumping pragmatism, and ratcheting up the volume and vitriol over the past twenty or so years. Shouting at each other has it's entertainment value, but it does not lead to solutions. Talking to each other - especially if there is an abundance and variety of possible solutions - provides the best odds of coming to the best solution. Let us believe that the vast majority of all citizens are responsible and patriotic, and not childish bullies. The conservative ideology, in it's best form, looks to help each individual attain his full promise in the world. It seeks to enable the individual to succeed as his talent allows him to. It wants the government to "get out of" the individual's way. That's a noble intention. The liberal ideology considers that in a society as rich and as blessed as we are, thought and care should be given to the least among us. Those who were given opportunity and who's individual talents were not up to individual success, or those who had opportunity denied, should be lifted up also. They see a government responsibility in helping to provide that. This is also a noble intention. These are two noble positions that need not be at odds with one another. There is no reason that they cannot work hand in hand to make this "a more perfect society."
There are many who would call this "compromise" as if that were a dirty word, but this is not a zero-sum game. If there is a solution proposed that is different from another solution, that does not make either solution wrong - or right, in any absolute sense. By placing both, or all ideas on the table, the good can be pulled from each idea to make a best solution. Often the absolute rejection of an idea by one side, can be remedied by asking what specifically about the idea that they object to, and addressing those specific objections. This was what used to be called governing, and it's high time that it's coming back into fashion.
The two most popular metaphors for partisanship are the "left wing / right wing" and the "middle of the road". Just an examination of those terms would shed light on how to get Washington working again. Many times the metaphor of the "wings" is translated as the wings of a building or house. Lincoln once observed that a "house divided against itself will not stand". Changing the metaphor from a building to a bird, gives a more workable solution. If a bird were to lose one, or both, wings, it could still survive and go on with it's life - granted without flying. It could move forward on it's legs. The wings though, if separated from the bird would die. It has been said that the make-up of the political population in the country is 10% ultra-liberal, 10% ultra-conservative, and 80% somewhere it the middle hoping to get things done. The demographics of the readership of this blog bear that out. If we were to separate out the "wacko fringe" (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh) of both ideologies that think the other side is evil, we are left with a group of people with noble intentions, trying to solve the challenges facing this nation. There will certainly be passionate debate and disagreement, but in a more respectful tone - and once again, this is what used to be called governing.
The "middle of the road" also lends itself to this discussion. Generally it is dismissed by both sides as a dangerous place to be standing. It is an apt metaphor if you are driving on any of the major highways in the country. The far left (extreme liberal) is the fast lane, moving at speeds that are sometimes reckless and dangerous. The far right (extreme conservative) is the "granny lane" where the cautious drivers move ever so slowly afraid of going too fast. All of the responsible, practical drivers are in the middle lanes, and veer only off into the far left or far right when events dictate that to be the best possible choice.
Common Sense Dictates
We are, all of us, in this together as Americans. Regardless of our points of view, the vast majority of us are looking for the best outcomes for our society. It is up to us, as the majority (as divergent as we are), to keep the debate civil, and keep the country making forward progress. Let us relegate the "wacko fringe" on both sides to the entertainment industry, where they belong... perhaps a "Survivor: Washington" - although that concept already has reasonable success on MSNBC and FoxNews. Those running for office on ideology above the good of the country need to be repudiated and sent home. It's time to take the country back for Common Sense.
- Talking the "bipartisanship" talk is the new fashion.
- Walking the "bipartisanship" walk has not caught up to fashion
The Editorial
One of the first articles posted on this blog was a call for non-partisanship - that was a lofty goal sought for and advised by George Washington, but soundly rejected by his successors (Adams and Jefferson) to the highest office in the land. After 225 years of moving down the path of partisan politics, perhaps non-partisanship is not a realistic goal - people will always act in their interests and group together with like minded individuals. This seems to be hard-wired into us, and may be one of the limitations separating us from the Divine, if you believe in that. It's a rather disappointing answer to a noble need.
In an interview this morning dealing with his healthcare program in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsome outlined his approach to the problem of not getting a satisfactory answer to the problems facing him. The answer he received for how do we accomplish health insurance for everyone in SF was that you can't - too many regulations to meet, too much opposition. Instead of kicking the can down the road for the next politician to solve, he changed the question to how can we provide healthcare for everyone in SF - his answer was by dropping the insurance out of the equations, and providing direct healthcare to his citizens. Time will tell if this approach works or not, but it does give perspective on how to deal with the issue of partisanship that America keeps fighting with.
So we change the question - how do we use partisanship to move the country forward? This will require some creative thinking and a bit of a leap of faith. For the leap of faith, we must assume that MOST people are not fire-breathing monsters out to destroy the country (either liberal or conservative), and most want the country, and themselves to do well. The polarization that we are experiencing now is a result of ideology trumping pragmatism, and ratcheting up the volume and vitriol over the past twenty or so years. Shouting at each other has it's entertainment value, but it does not lead to solutions. Talking to each other - especially if there is an abundance and variety of possible solutions - provides the best odds of coming to the best solution. Let us believe that the vast majority of all citizens are responsible and patriotic, and not childish bullies. The conservative ideology, in it's best form, looks to help each individual attain his full promise in the world. It seeks to enable the individual to succeed as his talent allows him to. It wants the government to "get out of" the individual's way. That's a noble intention. The liberal ideology considers that in a society as rich and as blessed as we are, thought and care should be given to the least among us. Those who were given opportunity and who's individual talents were not up to individual success, or those who had opportunity denied, should be lifted up also. They see a government responsibility in helping to provide that. This is also a noble intention. These are two noble positions that need not be at odds with one another. There is no reason that they cannot work hand in hand to make this "a more perfect society."
There are many who would call this "compromise" as if that were a dirty word, but this is not a zero-sum game. If there is a solution proposed that is different from another solution, that does not make either solution wrong - or right, in any absolute sense. By placing both, or all ideas on the table, the good can be pulled from each idea to make a best solution. Often the absolute rejection of an idea by one side, can be remedied by asking what specifically about the idea that they object to, and addressing those specific objections. This was what used to be called governing, and it's high time that it's coming back into fashion.
The two most popular metaphors for partisanship are the "left wing / right wing" and the "middle of the road". Just an examination of those terms would shed light on how to get Washington working again. Many times the metaphor of the "wings" is translated as the wings of a building or house. Lincoln once observed that a "house divided against itself will not stand". Changing the metaphor from a building to a bird, gives a more workable solution. If a bird were to lose one, or both, wings, it could still survive and go on with it's life - granted without flying. It could move forward on it's legs. The wings though, if separated from the bird would die. It has been said that the make-up of the political population in the country is 10% ultra-liberal, 10% ultra-conservative, and 80% somewhere it the middle hoping to get things done. The demographics of the readership of this blog bear that out. If we were to separate out the "wacko fringe" (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh) of both ideologies that think the other side is evil, we are left with a group of people with noble intentions, trying to solve the challenges facing this nation. There will certainly be passionate debate and disagreement, but in a more respectful tone - and once again, this is what used to be called governing.
The "middle of the road" also lends itself to this discussion. Generally it is dismissed by both sides as a dangerous place to be standing. It is an apt metaphor if you are driving on any of the major highways in the country. The far left (extreme liberal) is the fast lane, moving at speeds that are sometimes reckless and dangerous. The far right (extreme conservative) is the "granny lane" where the cautious drivers move ever so slowly afraid of going too fast. All of the responsible, practical drivers are in the middle lanes, and veer only off into the far left or far right when events dictate that to be the best possible choice.
Common Sense Dictates
We are, all of us, in this together as Americans. Regardless of our points of view, the vast majority of us are looking for the best outcomes for our society. It is up to us, as the majority (as divergent as we are), to keep the debate civil, and keep the country making forward progress. Let us relegate the "wacko fringe" on both sides to the entertainment industry, where they belong... perhaps a "Survivor: Washington" - although that concept already has reasonable success on MSNBC and FoxNews. Those running for office on ideology above the good of the country need to be repudiated and sent home. It's time to take the country back for Common Sense.
Posted by The Thomas Paine Project at 9/23/2008 3:04 PM 
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: bipartisanship
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: bipartisanship
This sort of sounds like an Obama speech - civility you can believe in. It would be great but McCain and Obama are supposed to be the poster boys for this, and look what's happening - name calling on both sides and high-brow mudslinging. Just look at how they're both playing politics on the banking bill this week. It started out as a joint statement delivered by both candidates, and then jointly going back to Washington to do their day jobs and pull their parties into line on this vote. Now McCain has to run back to DC by himself because apparently he's the only one who can cut a deal, and Obama is sounding like a 10 year old again who's trip to the debates might be canceled by the grown-ups. If the standard-bearers who preach working "across the aisle" can't manage this on a truly important issue, what hope do we have of converting the rest of them?
Reply to this
Looks like there's no one with a liking for either Obama's or McCain's help or "bipartisanship" today - they're both getting the bum's rush out of Washington today. Can you imagine? Congress complaining it can't get any work done because of the attention two senators are drawing to the process - guess it's hard to work out in the open with everyone able to see you and paying attention.
Reply to this
No wonder they don't want to work in the light of day. I guess it's no secret that I lean conservative, and I'm ready to blow a gasket about now. 700 billion dollars - all because a bunch of people we trusted to hold our money decided to go on a gambling spree instead. I couldn't even get my head around 700 billion dollars - til I did the math. There are about 70 million households in the US, and right now every one of them - mine, my sister's family, my nephew (just back from Iraq)and his family - and all of your families are in to this for $10,000 each. I don't know about you, but I could have used that ten thousand for maybe tuittion for my kids, some remodeling on the house, or maybe to put into my retirement. OH WAIT! That's why we're all in for $10,000 - so that my retirement, that is handled by the same "caretakers" is still there. Isn't that nice ? - it's costing me $10,000 to make sure what I have saved is still there. I'm mad as hell!
Reply to this
Well, now that they've chased the candidates out of DC, it seems that they came up with a midnight deal - I've been looking all over and see a bunch of smiling politicians of all stripes, but I can't seem to find any details on the bailout plan... This is sounding like "I have good news, and I have bad news", except no one wants to let us in on the specifics of the bad news. Guess we can gauge the plan by how Wall Street reacts... I hope there are SOME consequences to this playing fast and loose with our money.
Reply to this
Maybe the only way "bi-partisanship" can be accomplished is behind closed doors. I wouldn't mind the "smoke-filled room" so much if I thought I was being represented there, rather than the lobbyists and the big contributors. To get past this Congress really needs to do something about that 9% approval rating - Bush at 24% is looking like Captain America in comparison.
Reply to this
I don't think it's the ideology so much as the inflexibility, and that is on both sides. Everyone is so sure that they are the only right answer, and when you get the two sides lined up on opposite ends not talking to each other, then it's up to 1 or 2 swing voters to decide an issue. So the tiebreakers are Cheney, Lieberman, Chaffee and often enough, McCain. Somehow, I don't think this is what the founders had in mind.
Reply to this
Our first mistake is looking to the government to solve every problem in America - the job of the government is to defend the Constitution and its citizenry, and to provide for the common welfare. It has no business in most of the areas that it has stuck it's nose into. It is strictly to deal with international relations, defense, and common protections among the states. The states and local communities are the arbiters of that which is commonly considered social causes. Further - without proving a compelling interest in a certain social issue, all social issues should be a matter of conscience. With those limitations in place, there's not a whole lot of stuff left to polarize the country about and maybe some work would get done.
Reply to this