Democracy in America

Partisanship may be all well, good and American, but then so is complaining about it.

Great post.

OK, yes, all true, but kind of tripe, too. When we criticize partisanship, we aren't always complaining that people have opinions but that they're mendacious, evasive and/or demented in protecting those opinions from experience, information and interrogation. If we can get a little more quiet and honesty by Democrats and Republicans murdering each other, that could easily be better, and better moderated.

"Like Adam Smith’s economic 'invisible hand', the market of ideas and partisan political positions finds an equilibrium"

What about when there is radical disequilibrium? Your model falls apart if we stop assuming equilibrium is necessarily good or even that politics in any way trends towards equilibrium. This is an astonishingly problematic and flawed assumption (there is plenty of evidence on real world disequilibrium or natural breakdowns in relatively free markets).

Ugly lawmaking is a good thing, but Senate Republicans are guilty of far worse. Ugly confirmations, lasting 9 months for undersecretaries and judges, is partisanship gone berserk.

I'm not necessary for bipartisanship.

I just want the guys who are in the way of the guys I voted for, to get out of the way.

If they want to do that in a partisan way, works for me.

The difference now is that we have a President who doesn't seem to get that politics is a form of war, who always looks for compromise and who prefers to sit back and let the political system operate.

This is a problem.

As an independent whose vote swings back and forth, I voted for Obama - mostly because I thought McCain/Palin was terrible alternative. If the GOP put up a credible candidate, I would seriously consider voting for that person. By credible, I mean not Palin, not a bloviator like Rick Perry.

Problem: Obama may be strong in his persona, in his ability to stay calm and focused, but he is weak in actual battle and politics is battle. If you always look to compromise, then you don't recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your enemies and find yourself fighting their battles on their ground. That is not in the tradition of Presidential leadership.

Partisanship today is no worse than in the past. Lincoln was considered a traitor by many. Adams and Jefferson were assaulted in the press in ways that we could not stomach today. FDR was viscerally hated.

The difference is that we now have, perhaps for the 1st time, a President who doesn't seem to get the nature of partisan warfare.

When people say they want "bipartisanship", I believe what they really mean is "will convince everyone else that I'm right."

Partisanship may be the American past-time, but the rise of holds, filibusters, and other obstructing tactics in the Senate is a new phenomenon. Partisanship matters a lot more when the minority actually has the power to shut down the legislative process. It's crazy to think about, I know, but it used to be that the Senate would vote on legislation or appointments, and the side that had the most votes won. Now, votes are delayed for weeks or months and when they finally happen, 59-41 means nothing.

And even when the majority has 60 votes, each senator knows that their vote is essential, and prices it accordingly. If you want decent legislation passed on the merits (in theory, this could happen) you need the partisans on the majority side, plus the number of moderates in both parties willing to cut a deal, to equal about 64 or so Senators, so that if one holds out you can get another. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

In the meantime, the country still needs to be governed, so more and more responsibilities get shifted to the executive branch and the states, completely contorting the balance of power between the branches.

To paraphrase John Stewart, who was paraphrasing Rousseau... political debate ranges from high-minded discussion of the issues through to tribal warfare between arbitrary coalitions or factions. No political system provides a pure example of either; they vary along a continuum. But it is perfectly legitimate for people to complain that tribal warfare -- partisanship (eg red v blue) -- is undermining reasonable debate, and then put in place institutional means of minimising its effects.

The fact that people are naturally partisan is neither here nor there. People may be naturally aggressive, but that doesn't mean we should try to minimise its damaging effects (let alone celebrate the failure to do so as 'typically American').

Well, yes - but there may be some difference between partisanship and disagreeing with one's opponent no matter what his opinion (even if you privately agree).

That's BS. Partisanship transcends even ideology. Ideology I can at least tolerate as a fall back for the unwashed.

Ideology: Smaller government is good.
Partisanship: Bush pursued smaller government unlike the big spender he replaced, Bill Clinton.

Ideology: Government regulation is good.
Partisanship: Deregulation started with Reagan and continued under George W Bush and that caused the current financial crisis.

When the liberals are in power, the mainstream media are out there decrying partisanship, obstructionism, and gridlock, hysterically claiming the country has become 'ungovernable.' What happened to the 'dissent is patriotic' meme that was repeated over and again during the Bush administration? Apparently, there is no hypocrisy absurd enough for Democrats and the MSM to use in propagating their statist ideals to the ungrateful masses who need to appreciate their rulers more.

You call it obstructionism. We call it standing up to Big Government and Socialism. It's all a matter of perspective.

What has driven me crazy about Obama is that he behaved as if he were in "some sort of post-partisan promised land of governance and policymaking".

If you don't fight back, you lose.

Before we judge partisanship, we have to understand what our aims are, and whether partisanship helps us towards that goal or not.

For instance, EATING is generally good and necessary -- but it is a problem if you have a habit of eating when you should be working.

Partisanship is healthy in the sense that it keeps democracy active, and candidates accountable. It fuels a passion for country and politics which might be lacking if all we had were figures and regulations.

The only sense in which partisanship is unhealthy is when it prevents us from acting intelligently. In this respect, decade after decade of can-kicking on immigration reform, health care reform, infrastructure modernization, and education reform are "victims" of partisanship: both sides agree something must be done, but nothing is ever done. Whereas America has always excelled at innovation and boldness, partisanship has left us dangerously squeamish in a few areas. That's a problem.

But most of the whining about partisanship isn't about squeamishness per se, but rather about the values of Americans. In truth, many of the values undergirding the Tea Party insurgency involve withdrawl from global leadership; localizing; breaking down the American economy; and living without many of the public 'extravagances' that government has provided access to. Many whiners (myself included) wish so many Americans didn't want a return to mixture of 18th century living with 20th century Social Security. But the fact that they do isn't a failure of the system.

As a democracy, America can choose to change its course every two years, vascillating between 2010 and 1776 if it wants. And if I ever get tired of the passionate mood swings, I can move somewhere else. The ultimate insurance against unwanted government is knowing foreign languages.

doublehelix, cut it out. Both parties are utterly statist, for the simple reason that no one who goes to the trouble of gaining power is inclined to decrease it once he's got it. The only difference is who gets the goodies.

You keep protecting us from Socialism. Does that include Medicare Part D ?

I just now report everything that DH says rather than respond to it.

That's all he seems to do in return.

I started to read the current debate, and was immediately turned off that it was presented, of course, as yet another liberal vs. conservative battle. This time, with (the liberal) Yglesias taking the position that since liberals were (recently) in control of Congress, and couldn't get done what they wanted (at least not everything, and certainly not easily), that it's broke; and of course the (conservative) Wehner saying it's not broken, it works fine, since conservatives now seem to have benefited from obstruction. Reverse the fortunes, and you'll have Yglesias and Wehner arguing the opposite sides.

Don't I remember something about a "Gang of 14" and the "nuclear option" to do away with the filibuster when Republicans had control of the Senate not so long ago? I guess then Wehner would say it was broken, and Yglesias that it worked just fine. Phhhhh!!!!

@ pumpkindaddy

I used to read Yglesias's stuff and he advocated, then and now, for an abolition of the filibuster.

And even if partisans only oppose obstructive rules when they're in power, that's not an argument in favor of those rules.

Mr. Dean:

Well, those who are partisan enough that they "only oppose obstructive rules when they're in power" are themselves a good argument for keeping those obstructive rules, precisely because those rules keep such partisan idiots/ideologues from having unobstructed power.

@ mig^4: "I just now report everything that DH says rather than respond to it. That's all he seems to do in return."

But if you do that, then the terrorists win!