In defense of partisanship

[anna.]

Opinion | Why Partisanship is Good​

E.J. Dionne Jr.
September 7, 2022

Partisanship is a moral good, not an evil. Parties organize conflict in a democratic society, acknowledge that a free people will always have disagreements to resolve, and accept that the other side will sometimes win.​

​

With that paragraph, I have violated one of the central assumptions of contemporary political commentary. Even in opinion writing, virtue is typically cast as “nonpartisan,” “independent,” and unconstrained by grubby political concerns . . . .​

​

Small-d democratic partisanship entails an acceptance of ongoing discord, and of victory and defeat, because the partisan understands that “my party’s status is just one part in a permanently pluralist politics.” . . . .​

​

The mistake anti-partisans make is to confuse necessary limits on partisanship with an attack on partisanship altogether. The most obvious: Courts should not twist the law on behalf of party leaders. . . .​

​

I pulled a few quotes on partisanship from the above opinion piece, just to get the gist of it into the OP for those who likely won't click the link.

Partisanship doesn't hold a negative connotation for me, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I know there are plenty who see it as negative, but I don't, if it's not the "blind partisanship" the OP cautions against. I'd argue there's such a thing as a healthy partisanship.

Full disclosure: I've been registered as NPP (no political party) for the last decade-plus, and have voted Democratic for that same time period.

What do you think?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Partisanship can lead to long debates, in which nothing gets done. Things gets undone a lot. Undone in favor of one side, then undone in favor of the other. It's hard to have consistency in it

 

[Callisto]

I think a certain amount of partisanship is unavoidable when you have more than one view at hand. However, we are in a state of hyper-partisanship with rarely any efforts for bipartisanship. With 2 parties digging in their heels, all that accomplishes is to fuel discord and reinforce each side's respective prejudices. There is no effort at common ground, no incentive to learn or grow beyond each side's myopic stance. Which, it wouldn't surprise me, is possibly the point of it all. There are always people who seem to long for another civil war while others just like to watch the world burn. So is partisanship good? Perhaps, a modicum is to be expected, even unavoidable. But the partisanship we have today is a massive lethal dose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Partisanship, in my view, tends towards "group think" and "crowd mentality," rather than careful individual consideration of issues. Partisanship most assuredly tends to silence many voices.

When there are many parties, my concerns may be lessened -- but when there are effectively only two, I think it's less than optimal as a way to explore viewpoints and options.

 

[YmirGF]

Opinion | Why Partisanship is Good​

E.J. Dionne Jr.
September 7, 2022

Partisanship is a moral good, not an evil. Parties organize conflict in a democratic society, acknowledge that a free people will always have disagreements to resolve, and accept that the other side will sometimes win.​

​

With that paragraph, I have violated one of the central assumptions of contemporary political commentary. Even in opinion writing, virtue is typically cast as “nonpartisan,” “independent,” and unconstrained by grubby political concerns . . . .​

​

Small-d democratic partisanship entails an acceptance of ongoing discord, and of victory and defeat, because the partisan understands that “my party’s status is just one part in a permanently pluralist politics.” . . . .​

​

The mistake anti-partisans make is to confuse necessary limits on partisanship with an attack on partisanship altogether. The most obvious: Courts should not twist the law on behalf of party leaders. . . .​

​

I pulled a few quotes on partisanship from the above opinion piece, just to get the gist of it into the OP for those who likely won't click the link.

Partisanship doesn't hold a negative connotation for me, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I know there are plenty who see it as negative, but I don't, if it's not the "blind partisanship" the OP cautions against. I'd argue there's such a thing as a healthy partisanship.

Full disclosure: I've been registered as NPP (no political party) for the last decade-plus, and have voted Democratic for that same time period.

What do you think?

LOL. My instantaneous reaction was, "What a steaming load of codswallop!" A nanasecond later, I recognized that I am about as partisan as people get (though my allegances have changed wildly over the decades). So, yeah. Informed partisanship? Pragmatic partisanship?

 

[anna.]

Partisanship, in my view, tends towards "group think" and "crowd mentality," rather than careful individual consideration of issues. Partisanship most assuredly tends to silence many voices.

When there are many parties, my concerns may be lessened -- but when there are effectively only two, I think it's less than optimal as a way to explore viewpoints and options.

I'd classify group-think and crowd mentality as blind partisanship, which is negative. But I'm not going to set being an independent (even though I am one) over being in support of a party's platform or goals just so I don't give the impression of being partisan.

 

[anna.]

LOL. My instantaneous reaction was, "What a steaming load of codswallop!" A nanasecond later, I recognized that I am about as partisan as people get (though my allegances have changed wildly over the decades). So, yeah. Informed partisanship? Pragmatic partisanship?

Most politically involved people probably are. Maybe to be truly non-partisan one would have to have a certain amount of political apathy.


Either informed or pragmatic partisanship works.

 

[anna.]

Partisanship, in my view, tends towards "group think" and "crowd mentality," rather than careful individual consideration of issues. Partisanship most assuredly tends to silence many voices.

When there are many parties, my concerns may be lessened -- but when there are effectively only two, I think it's less than optimal as a way to explore viewpoints and options.

Maybe partisanship is a result of the increased polarity of recent years. Maybe Democrats and Republicans had a lot more in common back in the day when "reaching across the aisle" seemed like a good idea.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe partisanship is a result of the increased polarity of recent years. Maybe Democrats and Republicans had a lot more in common back in the day when "reaching across the aisle" seemed like a good idea.

We always have much more in common when we see each other as equals with different perspectives, rather than enemies.

 

[Stevicus]

Opinion | Why Partisanship is Good​

E.J. Dionne Jr.
September 7, 2022

Partisanship is a moral good, not an evil. Parties organize conflict in a democratic society, acknowledge that a free people will always have disagreements to resolve, and accept that the other side will sometimes win.​

​

With that paragraph, I have violated one of the central assumptions of contemporary political commentary. Even in opinion writing, virtue is typically cast as “nonpartisan,” “independent,” and unconstrained by grubby political concerns . . . .​

​

Small-d democratic partisanship entails an acceptance of ongoing discord, and of victory and defeat, because the partisan understands that “my party’s status is just one part in a permanently pluralist politics.” . . . .​

​

The mistake anti-partisans make is to confuse necessary limits on partisanship with an attack on partisanship altogether. The most obvious: Courts should not twist the law on behalf of party leaders. . . .​

​

I pulled a few quotes on partisanship from the above opinion piece, just to get the gist of it into the OP for those who likely won't click the link.

Partisanship doesn't hold a negative connotation for me, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I know there are plenty who see it as negative, but I don't, if it's not the "blind partisanship" the OP cautions against. I'd argue there's such a thing as a healthy partisanship.

Full disclosure: I've been registered as NPP (no political party) for the last decade-plus, and have voted Democratic for that same time period.

What do you think?

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with partisanship or taking a stand on something. The only real trouble seems to come in when people wantonly refuse to explain or justify their position. Instead, the general tendency is to attack their opponent's position, while doing next to nothing to argue for their own position. Some heavily partisan types might even cavalierly dismiss their opponents and imply that it's beneath them to actually debate and discuss their differences with people they disagree with.

Partisans may use mockery or the tactics of ridicule to denigrate their opposition, but when they wantonly refuse to debate in good faith or explain their position in earnest, then they come across more like political hacks who have an agenda.

 

[HonestJoe]

What do you think?

I disagree with the article and I don't see how it demonstrates partisanship is good. It highlights a problem of partisanship, with Republicans continuing to support Trump in large numbers and presents more partisanship as the solution, with people voting Democrat. None of that sounds good to me, and I think falls back to the stated assumption that political parties are an inevitable and positive element of democracy. I'm not sure where the example of the "healthy partisanship" you mentioned is.

I suspect parties of some kind are a fixture but how they operate could certainly change. It is widely recognise that a major issue with US politics specifically is the complete dominance of two parties and how they can use that dominance to keep it that way. That feeds the core issue with partisanship, which is that specific policies and even individual candidates become largely irrelevant because when the only viable option is the opposite party, no amount of bad policy or administrate failure will be enough to push enough voters over to the other side.

On significant improvement would be to enable and support more parties to meaningfully compete with the big two. To be fair, I'm not quite sure how that could be best achieved there and we're moving in the wrong direction on that here in the UK at the moment.

 

[Koldo]

I'd classify group-think and crowd mentality as blind partisanship, which is negative. But I'm not going to set being an independent (even though I am one) over being in support of a party's platform or goals just so I don't give the impression of being partisan.

What is the distinction you draw between being partisan and being a mere supporter of certain causes?

As I see it, blind partisanship to some extent is an integral part of partisanship. It is impossible to have the latter without the former being necessarily present.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

LOL. My instantaneous reaction was, "What a steaming load of codswallop!" A nanasecond later, I recognized that I am about as partisan as people get (though my allegances have changed wildly over the decades). So, yeah. Informed partisanship? Pragmatic partisanship?

I think that last part is really the crux of it. A healthy democracy requires healthy debate, and to that end, partisanship in some form is both necessary and good.
What I think the main issue is currently is that there is too much uninformed partisanship. I take a side not because that side has raised good points for this particular issue, but because 'this is my team' or even 'this has to be my team, since the other side is evil'.

I very much think of myself as a pragmatist. Strong opinions are fine, and chances are most of us will more often align with one political party than another. But seeing our side as the only valid side in all arguments is a major issue.

 

[YmirGF]

But seeing our side as the only valid side in all arguments is a major issue.

Agreed, @lewisnotmiller

In my groups we have two wonderful expressions because another common behavioral issue is the guys don't listen. One of the councillors said that he didn't think that was right and felt that it was more a case where that voice in their head is so loud it drowns out any one talking to them. So, it's not that they are not listening, it's that they cannot hear.

1. Listen with the intent that the speaker knows something you do not.
2. Listen with the intent to hear what is being said.

The first time anyone said #1 to me, my reaction was, "What? Other people know things? Do be serious!"

 

[Heyo]

Opinion | Why Partisanship is Good​

E.J. Dionne Jr.
September 7, 2022

Partisanship is a moral good, not an evil. Parties organize conflict in a democratic society, acknowledge that a free people will always have disagreements to resolve, and accept that the other side will sometimes win.​

​

With that paragraph, I have violated one of the central assumptions of contemporary political commentary. Even in opinion writing, virtue is typically cast as “nonpartisan,” “independent,” and unconstrained by grubby political concerns . . . .​

​

Small-d democratic partisanship entails an acceptance of ongoing discord, and of victory and defeat, because the partisan understands that “my party’s status is just one part in a permanently pluralist politics.” . . . .​

​

The mistake anti-partisans make is to confuse necessary limits on partisanship with an attack on partisanship altogether. The most obvious: Courts should not twist the law on behalf of party leaders. . . .​

​

I pulled a few quotes on partisanship from the above opinion piece, just to get the gist of it into the OP for those who likely won't click the link.

Partisanship doesn't hold a negative connotation for me, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I know there are plenty who see it as negative, but I don't, if it's not the "blind partisanship" the OP cautions against. I'd argue there's such a thing as a healthy partisanship.

Full disclosure: I've been registered as NPP (no political party) for the last decade-plus, and have voted Democratic for that same time period.

What do you think?

Partisanship can be a good thing when you need to be united against a strong(er) opponent. Unions are an example of a party that fights for workers against capitalist. Sometimes a higher goal can stand in the way of a pragmatic small solution.

But most of the time I'm more a person who looks at the issue and not at who is proposing a solution. That often gets me the accusation of being a traitor.

Not looking at the issue leads to such insane thing like one party suggesting a solution which gets voted down and next week the same proposal gets approved because someone from the majority party proposes the same thing. That's the kind of partisanship that is so often criticised by political commentators. It's all about the own party "winning" instead of making good decisions for the people. And it's the hypocrisy resulting from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Partisanship benefits from moderation.

 

[Augustus]

Opinion | Why Partisanship is Good​

E.J. Dionne Jr.
September 7, 2022

Partisanship is a moral good, not an evil. Parties organize conflict in a democratic society, acknowledge that a free people will always have disagreements to resolve, and accept that the other side will sometimes win.​

​

With that paragraph, I have violated one of the central assumptions of contemporary political commentary. Even in opinion writing, virtue is typically cast as “nonpartisan,” “independent,” and unconstrained by grubby political concerns . . . .​

​

Small-d democratic partisanship entails an acceptance of ongoing discord, and of victory and defeat, because the partisan understands that “my party’s status is just one part in a permanently pluralist politics.” . . . .​

​

The mistake anti-partisans make is to confuse necessary limits on partisanship with an attack on partisanship altogether. The most obvious: Courts should not twist the law on behalf of party leaders. . . .​

​

I pulled a few quotes on partisanship from the above opinion piece, just to get the gist of it into the OP for those who likely won't click the link.

Partisanship doesn't hold a negative connotation for me, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I know there are plenty who see it as negative, but I don't, if it's not the "blind partisanship" the OP cautions against. I'd argue there's such a thing as a healthy partisanship.

Full disclosure: I've been registered as NPP (no political party) for the last decade-plus, and have voted Democratic for that same time period.

What do you think?

Saying Party X aligns more with my values so I support them is not partisanship.

Promoting one’s values is not partisanship.

Feeling the need to see anything Party X does as good and anything Party Y does as pure evil is partisanship and is not good in any way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Promoting one’s values is not partisanship.

If one can promote one's values without taking sides, either the values are vapid or the promotion is worthless.

In many cases the effect is benign. In too many others, partisanship is critical, and disdain for partisanship serves primarily to promote complicity.

 

[anna.]

We always have much more in common when we see each other as equals with different perspectives, rather than enemies.

I'll admit that when I see a house or a truck flying a Trump flag, it hits me viscerally.

However, if we were facing a wildfire or other catastrophic event I'd help any neighbor, regardless.

I remember studying group mentality and the surest way to bring together warring tribes is when they have to unite in common defense to fight an enemy larger than their individual tribes. I think that concept is accurate.

 

[anna.]

Partisanship can be a good thing when you need to be united against a strong(er) opponent.

Just made a related observation in my previous post before I'd had a chance to read yours, that partisanship can be overridden in order to unite against a larger threat.

Unions are an example of a party that fights for workers against capitalist. Sometimes a higher goal can stand in the way of a pragmatic small solution.

But most of the time I'm more a person who looks at the issue and not at who is proposing a solution. That often gets me the accusation of being a traitor.

Not looking at the issue leads to such insane thing like one party suggesting a solution which gets voted down and next week the same proposal gets approved because someone from the majority party proposes the same thing. That's the kind of partisanship that is so often criticised by political commentators. It's all about the own party "winning" instead of making good decisions for the people. And it's the hypocrisy resulting from it.

Negative partisanship to me is seeing all members of the opposing party as one homogenized enemy.