David P. Redlawsk: I Like Partisanship in American Politics
This isn’t a popular position, but I am all in favor of partisanship.
I know, the prevailing zeitgeist is that we are moving into an Obama-led post partisan world. We saw some of it here in Iowa, back in the now distant days of the Obama Iowa Caucus campaign. Part of the secret of Obama’s win in Iowa was that he reached out beyond the tradition party based lists of “likely Iowa Caucus goers,” and invited both independents, and Republicans to caucus for him. At least some part of the significant increase in Democratic voter registration in Iowa in 2008 is attributable to Republicans who reregistered on Caucus night so they could attend their local Democratic caucus. After that time Obama’s campaign rhetoric – even in the primaries – continued to include a call to put aside partisanship and to come together for the greater good.
Who can resist this siren call? What could be better than coming together to work in concert to address our country’s challenges? And so I feel a bit curmudgeonly in saying that I remain proud to be a partisan, proud to support a point of view that I think is the right one, the one that will lead to a better tomorrow for our nation.
And this, it seems to me, is the problem with “post-partisanship”: the reality is that there are, in fact, two diametrically opposed perspectives on what it takes to make “progress” towards a “good life” for all Americans.
On one side – the one opposite of my position – is the belief that rampant individualism, looking out for ourselves, and letting the chips fall where they may is the answer, that somehow the invisible hand of an unfettered marketplace will lead society to the good life. Never mind that many individuals for significant systemic reasons cannot actually fulfill this individualist American dream.
To my view, the serious irony in this position of individualism is that many individuals cannot make it through little fault of their own, yet it is argued that society (the group!) is better off if these individuals are left on their own to sink or swim.
On the other side – the one I subscribe to – government exists for the good, to help offset the inequities of a free market and of human greed, which have become quite clear over the past year. Government makes mistakes, of course, since it is a human institution, but its role in society is at least in part to ensure that individuals do not fall through the cracks. Obviously I am vastly oversimplifying both positions, and there are people who claim they can blend the “best” of both worlds. Moreover, there are good, principled people on both sides of this divide.
Basic positions irreconcilable.
For the most part I believe these basic positions are irreconcilable. They go back a long way in American history, and our two major political parties have always been structured more or less around the basic question of whether government is a force for good or a force for bad. How do you cross a divide like this?
I give great credit to Obama for trying, and I do believe the American public as a whole actually believes that government plays an important and valuable role in society. But at the level of political elites – not just in Washington, but throughout the country – the incentive structure is not in favor of bi- or post-partisanship. Those who are motivated to run for office, who represent a tiny portion of the American public, will always be more intense in their preferences, more focused on their ideologies, and more committed to seeing their own ideological vision come to fruition than the public overall. Moreover, on a practical level, given my own preferences, it seems that political “compromise” and “bi-partisanship” usually means Democratic principles are compromised to move closer to Republican positions, rather than the other way around.
The result of Obama’s initial foray into bipartisanship simply reinforces my belief in partisanship. Who wrote the stimulus bill? Effectively three Republican Senators. Why? Because of the twin desires for “bi-partisanship” and the ridiculous gentleman’s agreement in the Senate to give the minority outsized power behind the scenes rather than to force them to actually stand up and filibuster in public. Had Harry Reid simply told the Republicans that they would have to come to the Senate floor day after day to sustain an actual filibuster I suspect the American public would have turned on the Republicans quite quickly for being obstructionist in this time of economic disaster. Instead we get a watered-down bill that many economists believe is simply not big enough to make a lot of difference.
And beside a watered-down bill, what did we get?
We got Republicans vilifying Obama for not bringing them into the “process,” which is simply a gross exaggeration of the truth – shall we say a partisan exaggeration? And we got those very same Republicans who refused to play nice now claiming credit for bringing goodies to their states.
So in the end it sounds like the old partisan ways of doing business are just as prevalent as ever, no matter what Obama might like. But unlike most of the punditry, I do not have a problem with that. The voters clearly elected the Democrats after eight years of the Bush White House, most of it with a Republican Congress. They did so because they believed – at least in this election – that the Democratic vision for America is the right one going forward. It is incumbent then on Democrats to actually put that vision into place, even if it means continuing to play partisan politics.
Americans may say they don’t like partisanship. But to put it bluntly, just because Americans don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t good for them.
Partisanship gives us clear choices about what vision of the good life we subscribe to. Post-partisanship muddies those choices, makes them less clear, and in the end is probably doomed to failure anyway, given the more than 200-year-old fundamental argument in American society: government as a force for good or a force for bad?
But let me be clear on one last point. Being partisan does not mean being nasty, negative, or simply mean. One can be – I hope! – partisan with respect for the sincerely held positions of the other side. In the end that’s what I think is missing these days from American politics. It’s not that we need post-partisanship. What we need is respectful, thoughtful partisanship with open honest debate. And that’s a whole ‘nother set of problems!
comments powered by Disqus
Jose Alfredo Bach - 2/27/2009
Yes. Of course. On the other hand, whenever I hear the expression "bipartisan," I hear it as code for maintaining the status quo, for doing only cosmetics, and actually for the one party system that has now obtained in the US. We really need at least three parties, proportional representation, and cicil discussion and debate. Instead of this we have cosmetic and distracting polarization on the trivial (abortion, gay rights, etc.) and complete agreement to maintain our nomenklatura in power at all costs. Yikes!
- Stanford historian uncovers the dark roots of humanitarianism
- Historian hailed for offering a history of the culture wars
- Scholars to set the West straight about "Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad"
- Why Eugene Genovese’s 2 sentences about Vietnam went viral in 1965
- Historians named to the 2015 class of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences