Partisanship: What's Up With That?

I don't know if we're seeing a political shift, but I think we are. Having been a lifelong Democrat and as a continuing anti-Republican, I see a different left-wing party or coalition as the answer. During this process of change, my greatest problem has been with those in my own party who fear change. I continue to disagree with most Republicans, but am disappointed with fellow Democrats who seem unwilling to rethink issues in a changing world. I like change and challenge!

This is bound to come up so I'll ask you up front! Would you mind defining the context of the word "partisnship" here? lol The request may seem a bit mundane but it seems people like to create their own definitions. At least if everyone is working with the same definition there is a starting point.

What do you think of partisanship in others and in you?
I think we sometimes fall into a trap set to keep the citizenry bickering over stupid points, instead of instituting REAL change and improvement in our government. I used to almost be afraid to admit to weaknesses in my party. It is freeing to tell it as you see it, instead of manufactoring excuses for their mistakes. But, I still start from the point of giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt in some cases, unless they are disproven.
Is it beneficial?
I believe it is divisive and manipulative. It causes intelligent people to put their heads in the sand, rather than address realities. Partisanship has us at odds, instead of forcing our gov't to serve us more efficiently.
What is your opinion of the two-party system?
It has served this country well, and I think America would be less happy with candidates winning a plurality, instead of a majority.

Has it been a boon to the American way of life? IMO, yes. It has been a stablizing influence. The parties are similar, so it is never a regime change when one party loses to another.

Do you see a more pronounced shift to the center in American politics?
Definitely.
Do you think a change is in store for the two-party system, or is this near split down the center an anomaly?
I am concerned that we may be in for some unstable change. If so, I hope the result is an improvement. But, true to the GOP, I am concerned about big changes.

I'll begin with the definition: Blind loyalty to a political party.
I'll concede that definition, if someone shares a better one. Partisanship, to me, would be promoting your party line, whether or not you thought it was the best idea. It is turning a deaf ear to the other party's ideas.

Do you think that's a fair definition?

i too have a problem with "partisanship" i would think that i am mostly liberal which often means i don't follow any party line, my voting has ranged from libertarian-green-republican-and democrat. am i biased? of course, we all have our own histories-events, and understandings based on our life experiences. fortunately i see that our younger generations are no so "party blind" as my generation has been simply voting party lines.what was conservative in my lifetime was the politics of Eisenhower and then Goldwater. and i honestly do not see that "conservative" element in todays republican party, nor do i see what was called "progressive" in todays democratic party. the party's of today have blurred most lines of distinction into an amorphous blob. just my opinion, i could be wrong.

dys--
I see the same thing you do.
The fringe right is no longer powerful in the GOP, and the more progressive Democrats seem to have moved to the center, because the progressives have a hard time getting elected.

We have morphed into one big ball.

I thought Ross Perot's party (though HE is an idiot, IMHO) was going to culminate into a viable party several years ago, but they pooped out.

If the Greenies could get a couple of Senators, who were passionate about the environment and good on a couple of other issues, they may get a foothold. My problem with them is they go TOO far. You can't put owls over people and trees over jobs. If they could rein it in a bit...

Ooops. Guess I just piled them in the big ball...

I wish McCain or someone with a background would run Indie on term limits. I know he tried, but he needs to form an amalgam of people who are sick of the status quo.

I believe that partisanship as blind allegiance to the party line, is a bad thing; it stifles meaningful debate and is a bar to the intake of new information.

However, I also think that we each have certain core beliefs, regarding which we are unwilling to compromise. This too is often called partisanship, and in a sense it is, but it is very different from the kind of partisanship of which you wrote, Lash.

Over the last few years, the term "bipartisan" has become very popular, and I find that troubling, because the implication in its use often seems to be that reasonable men and women will compromise and reach a bipartisan solution in every case. Well, in certain cases it is simply not acceptable to compromise on core beliefs, yet that seems to be what is expected in every case.

I don't believe you can sell the value of smaller government while increasing government's size and reach. I didn't vote for my representative or my President so he would go to Washington and play nice. I voted for the men and women for whom I voted because I wanted them to fight for my core beliefs -- obeying the constitution, paring back government, rolling back dependence on the government and re-educating people about the benefits of real liberty.

When both parties agree that X should be done, but differ on the methods, working together in a spirit of bipartisanship is a useful thing. But when they differ on whether X should be done, bipartisanship is just a nice word for abandoning the values for which your constituents elected you.

Welcome to A2K tresspassers!

I think you hit on something that has been in the back of my mind for a bit but didn't "click" until I read your comment.

"When both parties agree that X should be done, but differ on the methods, working together in a spirit of bipartisanship is a useful thing. But when they differ on whether X should be done, bipartisanship is just a nice word for abandoning the values for which your constituents elected you."

IMO, this hits on why the parties seem to be "melding" as it were. I don't think there is much major disagreement about what the major issues are right now; at least not as much so as there was in past years. That leaves us bickering over HOW to achieve those goals instead of determining what goals to go after.

I think there is also a bit of a shift in how people look at politics today. More people are shifting away from siding with any given party on every issue and are moving between parties on an issue by issue basis. I think that largely acounts for the "big ball" in the middle where the parties look the same.

Fine topic, Lash.

Now, here is the notion re 'partisanship' I find precisely at the nub...
On the term 'bi-partisan', there is also the regretable commonplace where the term is wielded in the 'do you still beat your wife, sir?' mode. That is, where one party wants something and suggests that any opposition is a clear instance of black-hearted partisanship and will surely deliver an unconscionable injury to true democracy. This muddies the waters somewhat.

There is no option in the poll to vote "not a member of any stinkin' party". Thus, I can't vote.

Depends on what the meaning of spin is, but I define it as overuse of rhetorical rationalization and/or argument Partisanship has been the albatross of the two party system. The forefathers didn't like the idea of a two party system -- several of them expressed a fear that it would destroy the country. Anyone puzzled over why we are in the state we are in?

Well, I'd be happy to see more debate about "how" and less about who has the moral authority to do what needs to be done.



Unfortunately I find I tend to be tattooed with a party label based on my position on the current topic. There are issues on which people consider me to be liberal, but alas, most people don't seem to notice that.

By the way, anyone who's never seen it might be interested in taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It attempts to show you where you fall on a political graph that places conservative and liberal to the right and left, and authoritarian or libertarian at the bottom and top, respectively.

My problem is that my core beliefs do not coincide with any major party platform. Therefore, I vote for candidates on an individual basis. As a libertarian (small "l") some of my values are consistent with conservative beliefs, others with liberals.

Therefore, the vast majority of the people whom I vote for are definitely a compromise!