Partisanship (per se) is never a virtue
There's a good conversation going here (comments) about the state of the U.S. party system. But I just want to chime in and state that partisanship (per se) is never a virtue. Not even advocates of the party government model advocate partisanship (per se/qua partisanship). They advocate a certain model of party behavior--one that does not exist in the U.S. today, no matter how toxic the party/partisan environment. But not partisanship per se.
As a long-time advocate of the party government model, I thought I should point this out. I can (and should) say more, but it's late, and it's time for bed.
posted by Number Three @ 10:08 PM
1 Comments:
I'm interested to see what your longer argument on this issue will be. It's an important question.
As it happens, I don't think my argument in earlier comments necessarily implied that partisanship was a "virtue" per se. In fact I was quite clear that I thought GOP partisanship-for-partisanship sake was often the very opposite of virtue. How else can you characterize the partisan slander campaigns against decorated vets and patriotic public servants like Cleland and Kerry except as "vicious"? I'd offer a Democratic example for balance, but I don't know of any equivalent case on the Dem side. Asking Sam Alito tough questions on the basis of his actual record simply does not rise to the same level (if indeed tough Qs had been asked).
Still, there's a world of difference between the kind of nihilistic tactics employed by the GOP in the name of partisanship and my argument that the Dems should start playing team baseball for a change rather than continuing to obsess over their individual batting averages. To this point, my argument has been that Dem partisanship is a "necessary evil" under present circumstances. But I'm also open to the possibility that, much like war itself, partisanship may be an ugly and undesirable thing that can nonetheless provide the opportunity for virtue.
Post a Comment
<< Home