In defense of partisanship--this one's for you, Wes

[shando]

Just go read this.

[arthursimone]

agreed! "Modern bipartisanship can be simply defined as Democrats repeatedly getting taken to the cleaners by Republicans."

I support multi-party cooperation in theory, but right now the only way to prevent the american neo-fascists from running gleefully through all levels of government is to meet them tit for tat.

Democrats: Blue!
Republicans: Red!
Arthur: Well, we can all agree on purple, right?
Republicans: Red!
Democrats: Blue!
Republicans: Red!
Democrats: Okay, this is getting silly. I propose purple.
Republicans: Reddish Purple! Done!
Arthur: Arrrg! I wish more people knew about instant runoff voting!

[shando]

By the way, Digby is one of my favorite blogs. In my top 5 go to blogs, especially for putting the right in historical perspective. He remembers Vietnam and Nixon and such and rights about those days (and how they are relevant to today) very well.

[shando]

Even more good partisan stuff for you, this time from Michael Kinsley writing in the Guardian.

One of the axioms of democratic piety in the US is that you vote for the person, not the party. People love to say, "I evaluate each candidate on his or her own merits" - even when it's not true. A related form of democratic piety is to refrain from voting at all if you know little or nothing about the candidates.

But this year does seem to be different. You hear people say - though rarely as forthrightly as the Times - that they are voting for the party, not the person. Well, more accurately, they say they are voting against the party, not the person. The Republican candidate for the Senate or House may be saintlike in general, no worse than muddled on the war in Iraq, and good on stem-cell research. Meanwhile the Democrat may be a grotesque hack just inches from indictment, whose views on Iraq are equally muddled with less excuse (since loyalty to the president is not a factor). Nevertheless, many people are voting for the Democrat simply out of anger at or frustration with the Republican party.

The pious view is mistaken. There is nothing wrong with voting for the party, not the person. In other democracies, such as Britain, this person-not-the-party piety is unknown and would be hard to comprehend. A candidate for parliament runs on a party platform promising various things, and if that party wins a majority of seats it "forms a government". You would be silly to vote for the person and not the party. The party's views are what counts. The person's own views are almost irrelevant.

Even under the American arrangement there is nothing ignoble about voting the party line. It is an efficient way to minimise your information costs. Voting is an irrational act: your vote does not matter unless it's a tie. And even 2000 was not a tie. The more effort you put into learning about the candidates, the more irrational voting becomes, and the more likely you are not to bother. A candidate's party affiliation doesn't tell you everything you would like to know, but it tells you something. In fact it tells you a lot - enough so that it makes sense to vote for your party preference even when you know nothing else about a candidate. Or even to vote for a candidate that you actively dislike.

[Wesley]

Sorry, I've not had a computer at home so I've not gotten to read this yet.

I have mixed feelings. I don't mind party partisianship to a little degree, as it does help put people into general belief camps.

But I lament the state to which it has gone. People who blindly vote parties, for instance (eliminating straight ticket voting options would be the second of my big three election reforms).

Or parties and candidates defining themselves more by what they are against than for. It's odd, so often now it seems the other side defines what a candidate is for through attack ads that are against it. "He's for this and this and this and I'm not." But rarely do you ever hear a candidate clearly state "This is what I am for." And even when you do, it is often vague and unclear on specifics. Kerry was a prime example. His whole mantra was "I have a plan," but despite repeated looking, I never found any detailed plan spelled out anywhere and the plans I did find were typically vague ("John Kerry is for better education").

We're slowly but surely painting ourselves into a corner, but we never stop to truly question things. We just pick up another can of paint every two years and keep on doing it.

[York99]

it is often vague and unclear on specifics.

Is this a double redundancy? Is what I just typed possible?

Nailed you. You're welcome, Ratliff.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

I keep meeting people at UT who only agree with what their party believes in, and do so without question. The importance of an unbiased opinion is out, and it doesn't matter where you land from liberal to conservative, its "are you democrat or republican?"


...and Arthur is right, what happened to compromise?

[Wesley]

Just one of the many reasons I'd abolish straight ticket voting. And UT.

[York99]

Just one of the many reasons I'd abolish straight ticket voting. And UT.

I agree. Down with UT... in fact down with the whole Big 12.