"Partisanship" in American Government Means Caring About a Cause

"Partisanship", according to Princeton University's WordNet, is "an inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives". According to Dictionary.Com, a "partisan" is "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause" but especially "a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance". According to Senator Joseph Lieberman, "People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry bickering in Washington. It is continually blocking progress on major problems and wasting America's greatness." Partisanship, it seems, is a terrible thing.

But not in Europe. In almost every country on the Continent, partisanship is celebrated and exercised with a clear conscience. In England, for example, the Labor and Conservative Parties enjoy fierce adherents, as the Democratic and Republican Parties do in the United States. But there is no bad conscience about it, and the charge of "partisanship" would lead to a blank stare, perhaps a laugh. "Of course I'm partisan!" one can imagine the response. "I agree with my party." Why the air of criminality in America for knowing what one thinks, being sure of it, and following it to its logical conclusion? In my view, charges of "partisanship" are attempts to avert real debate on the issues while slandering one's opponents. By merely charging them with "bias" without proof, we discredit both them and their ideas without even having to argue our own position.

For most of human history, there has been no shame in supporting, advocating, even physically fighting for causes. The Revolutions of 1848 caused shockwaves throughout Europe, as entrenched monarchies and other powers felt the threat of rising Communism. While they quaked in fear and worked against the radical leftists in the streets, it never once occurred to them to denounce "partisanship". They too were partisan. Everyone has an interest to defend, and he or she who does not know this is lost. Those who decry "partisanship" would have you follow them - become their partisan - at your own expense. It's not really partisanship today's "anti-partisanship" slanderers oppose; it's opposition to them. They relish support, as does everyone, and their charges are merely ways, scurrilous ways, to drum up more of it-to create their own partisans. What they are really saying (without the courage to do so) is, "Don't support my opposition-support me." How refreshing such honesty would appear, were we to hear it in America.

Sadly, the state of American politics has degenerated from a time, a short generation ago, when Democrats and Republicans faced off in sincere contests of ideas, with self-respect and passion. Reagan changed that, not only flag-waving up a storm, but portraying all who disagreed with him as somehow fundamentally un-American. Political parties had risen and fallen before in the United States, and had been subject to vicious lies and slanders, but never before had it been alleged, or even implied, that every member of an entire national, mainstream party was suspect automatically merely for being a member. That strikes me as partisanship of a new order: "All who oppose us are Other, Evil, to be cast out," goes this line of thinking, and it now occurs on the Left as well as the Right. Perhaps this is to what Senator Lieberman referred, but I doubt it. I think he was waving the charge frivolously, or falsely, like the rest of today's so-called "statesmen".

The current "Mark Foley scandal" provides an instructive anecdote. On Monday, October 9, Republican North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, and the following exchange occurred:

Representative McHenry: "Did Rahm Emmanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement at the strategic or tactical level . . . ?"

Wolf Blitzer: "Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal? . . . Yes or no: do you have any evidence, Congressman?"

Representative McHenry: "Do you have any evidence that they weren't involved?"

Now that's what I call "bias".

I am not against politics; on the contrary, like the Europeans and smart Americans, I know that government is not only important but necessary; that no one is in this life alone; and that we need to work together. But this does not, should never mean, sacrificing one's ideals for the sake of a deal. "Compromise" is almost a dirty word today, whereas it is the foundation of our government, which was designed to make sure it happens. The Framers knew that bias could trample all else. They were also partisan. When they started, debates between Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison shook the Nation. England was merely the party cast off, allowing parties in America to compete unfettered. And since then, we have had a grand and glorious debate, with the rise and fall of many parties. Each of them had a reason (or more) to exist; each of its participants felt no shame in supporting a cause. Today standing for something is both celebrated and slandered. It is harder than ever to do what is right with no injury to one's reputation. One might be accused of "partisanship".

On what side do you stand? For what will you fight? As the Canadian "progressive-rock" band Rush sang in its song "Freewill", "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Everyone is partisan - as everyone has needs and emotions - whether he or she knows it or not.

The question is: whose part do you take?