Ideology versus Partisanship
Lance on Mar 23 2007 at 1:05 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Lance's Page, Libertarianism
Thanks to Simon at Stubborn Facts, I read this piece again from Michael Kinsley:
[I]t’s pretty clear what Americans want. They want an end to partisan bickering. They want pragmatic solutions, not ideological posturing. They want leaders who reject politics as usual and put the country’s interests ahead of the party’s. They want a government that will do the right thing, regardless of whether it is “liberal” or “conservative.” They don’t like labels. And, oh yes, they are tired of spin.
…
What Americans say they want–or even what they think they want–needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Their objection, very often, is less to politics than to arithmetic. Do they want our health-care system fixed? Yes. Do they want Social Security and Medicare on a more solid footing? Absolutely. Will they pay for these things? Not a chance. There are no pragmatic, nonideological solutions to the big question of what the government should do and what it shouldn’t. You can have your government programs and pay for them, like a good liberal, or you can have your tax cuts and forgo the programs, like a good conservative. Asking for both is the opposite of pragmatic.
Another name for the much derided “politics as usual” is democracy. Things get disagreeable because people disagree. Ideology is a good thing, not a bad one — and partisanship is at its worst when it is not about ideology. That’s when it descends into trivia and slime. Ideology doesn’t have to mean mindless intransigence or a refusal to accommodate new evidence or changing circumstances. It is just a framework of basic principles.
…
A politician ought to have an ideology. For that matter, so should a voter. Although ideology is sometimes dismissed as a substitute for thinking, it more likely is evidence that you’ve thought things through. Why is there a huge farm bill and no bill for struggling autoworkers? Why did we invade Iraq in search of nuclear weapons, but not North Korea? Hillary Clinton’s description of her beliefs, quoted above, sounds more like a charity fund-raiser gift bag–a little of this, a little of that–than a coherent philosophy. Her competitors are no better.
Emphasis above is mine. I have been accused at times of partisanship, which to me is about “my side” being right no matter what their position. I am a partisan, to certain conclusions about things, to certain ideological beliefs, not parties or organizations. I make no bones about that, and neither should anyone. It is political partisanship without regard to ideology that has brought the Republicans low, and from what I can see will lead the Democrats even lower if they don’t get their bearings.
Tags: Democrats, Republicans, politics, partisanship, ideology
Sphere: Related Content9 Responses to “Ideology versus Partisanship”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Democracy will last only until the public realizes they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses. The pander bears in Congress are moving the country in that direction. That is to be expected during the decline and fall of a civilization.
Gloomy today aren’t you fish.
Realistic
I said nothing about why you were gloomy. Realistic often leads to gloom.
Of course, If you make the bread a baguette and the circus Cirque de Soleil, then I am tempted myself.
I started out in TV photojournalism in the early 60’s and as time passes the more pessimistic I get. Check out my essay on the possibility that Gore may be the next President. The you too can be bummed out.
Hey Mr. Fish,
I just left a little comment on your piece. And what a great site! And my God, that redhead ’bout melted the enamel off of my teeth.
yours/
peter.
The women of the month make it hard to concentrate on writing my essays. I treat myself to the view after I have finished writing. If nothing else they make the Constitutional Matters Project worth checking out.
Except at work.
I’m retired. Older than Dirt