"Partisan"

On top of whatever else has been said, Anne-Marie Slaughter's Post op-ed seems to involve an odd definition of "partisan"

The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. [...] Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. [...] In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. [...] Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well.

Say what you will about this stuff, but none of it is partisan. Bolton was, after all, perfectly correct to say that the deal Nick Burns struck with North Korea and that Bush agreed to contradicts the basic premises of the Bush foreign policy. The partisan thing for Bolton to have done would have been to keep his qualms quiet and let the Great Leader bask in praise. Similarly, for Democrats to attack Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama isn't partisanship. What's partisanship is when people refrain from criticizing their party's leading figures.

Comments

Technically, I think partisan in this setting would be refraining from criticizing their party's leading figures, combined with attacking opposition members when they make the same criticism Bolton et.al. are making here.

Posted by msmackle | July 28, 2007 3:09 PM

Yes, the correct model of perfect partisanship is that ever-'Serious' commentator Britt Hume.
Always agree with EVERYTHING Your Leader does, and if it an egregious act being criticized roundly, denounce the other side as being Partisan for criticizing it. Seriously, Hume should give classes on how to be a loyal hack. He has GOP Stalinism to a tee.

Posted by twit | July 28, 2007 3:17 PM

Since 9/11, "partisan" has been defined as someone who refuses to be a partisan subscriber to Bush's Cult of Personality. A conviction conservative is a partisan Republican believer in Bush's Cult of Personality. A moderate is a non-Republican partisan subscriber to the Bush Cult of Personality.

Posted by Memekiller | July 28, 2007 3:19 PM

Memekiller, did you read the column? It's egregiously bad, but it's use of Partisan doesn't resemble what you're saying at all. In particular, she describes a vice-presidential aide as partisan, and Barack Obama as bipartisan.

Posted by washerdreyer | July 28, 2007 3:23 PM

It becomes clearer with each of her ridiculous musings that Slaughter never understood the online movement, or her minute role in it, that eventually brought her to her current level of employment.

This lack of understanding explains her rise to greater prominence: She was ignorant of the very process that she was a part of, and such obliviousness (along with craven self-interested acquiescence to and accommodation with a self-deluding status quo) is the primary prerequisite and indispensable character flaw required of content providers in the masser media.

So, Anne-Marie has graduated from specializing in anal sex references to actual soul-shrinking brown-nosing. Such a promotion! Hope it pays well.

But you cannot buy back your soul. Farewell, dear sell-out.

Love,
News Nag

Posted by News Nag | July 28, 2007 3:32 PM

I think you're mixing up Anne-Marie Slaughter (Princeton professor) and Ana Marie Cox (former Wonkette).

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 28, 2007 3:38 PM

I think you're mixing up Anne-Marie Slaughter (Princeton professor) and Ana Marie Cox (former Wonkette).

That depends how you interpret the phrase "fundamental premise."

Posted by James Gary | July 28, 2007 3:41 PM

"In a true democracy there is no room for serious differences of opinion on great issues."

I ran across this gem from Gore Vidal's Messiah, possibly one of the more prescient novels about contemporary America looniness ever written.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | July 28, 2007 3:57 PM

"The partisan thing for Bolton to have done would have been to keep his qualms quiet and let the Great Leader bask in praise."

Bullshit.

I wish that someone would make a clear argument distinguishing partisanship from defense of prerogative, but you know what? it can't be done. Ultimately what keeps people from making stupid and indefensible arguments is not their own sense of reason but the risk of having to suffer the humiliation of someone else pointing out the stupidity.

There's high politics and low politics, there's partisanship and there's not giving a shit about anything else but the party. It's not partisanship itself that's the issue, since while republicans have stopped giving a shit about the country, democrats have realized (finally) that threatening to take their ball and go home does not win elections, and that winning elections and not maintaining one's own sense of moral superiority, is the god damn point.
So as much as I'm happy that you've gotten your tongue out of Anne-Marie Slaughter's ass, you understand both the risks and the necessity of partisanship about as much as she does.

Posted by seth edenbaum | July 28, 2007 4:35 PM

Ann-Maire Slaughter labels people as partisan depending upon how much their views stray from her own, which of course represent the very model of bipartisan serious thought.

Posted by Rob | July 28, 2007 4:36 PM

Actually, I think Slaughter's usage makes perfect sense, and Matt's objection is sophistical. "Partisan", as she uses it, is opposed to both "bi-partisan" and "non-partisan". Partisanship can be expressed by a tight-lipped, disciplined loyalty that emphasizes the promotion of party unity, and refrains from attacking party leaders even where one disagrees with them. But it can also be expressed by attacking perceived defectors, deviants, collaborators, fraternizers etc - those who wander too far from the party line. That is another way of maintaining and enforcing loyalty. Those inside the circle of fidelity are vigorously protected and defended, and, disagreements among them are squelched. Those who venture outside the circle are repudiated and attacked as apostates.

Partisanship in the US, whether on the web or elsewhere, is obsession with the permanent political struggle between the two major US parties, coupled with a pronounced emotional attachment to one of the parties, and passionate commitment to achieving victory for that party in the struggle. The attacks on defectors Slaughter is describing and the strength-in-unity approach Matt is describing are both manifestations of partisan behavior.

Slaughter's Princeton project was an explicitly bi-partisan project, organized to fashion a new bi-partisan consensus (not just compromise) in foreign policy. For that purpose, it organized meetings among members of the foreign policy elites of both parties, and these meetings involved people "reaching across party lines" to build a consensus that would deviate in important ways from the positions favored by the ranks and files of the two major parties - at least that's how the effort was portrayed and perceived by its organizers.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 28, 2007 4:52 PM

"Non-partisan" extends from where Bush and Cheney are to just to the right of wherever Hillary is that day. It includes the likes of Russert and Matthews, Lieberman and McCain.

Everybody else is a wicked partisan fanatic. That makes, say, Obama and Fred Phelps equally far from the center of acceptable discourse.

Posted by Carl from L.A. | July 28, 2007 5:14 PM

The Slaughter essay is fascinating because it shows exactly what "partisan" means in elite Washington discourse.

The term does not mean what it's traditionally supposed to mean, as Matt says above. It also doesn't exactly mean opposition to Bush.

What it means is opposition to the center-right concensus that considers itself to be wholly objective and disinterested. The center-right concensus on foreign policy is simply a rightist / moderate neocon concensus. Opposition to it, whether from the batshit neocon right, the paleocon right, or the center-left (the actual left being nowhere near this conversation) is "partisanship".

Slaughter's mistake in this op-ed is stating the truth so baldly - there's supposed to be a certain amount of obfuscation of what "partisan" means.

Posted by DivGuy | July 28, 2007 6:07 PM

Anne-Marie Slaughter is simply David Broder in a dress, which frankly is an improvement. The point of the article is that whatever is moderate and bipartisan is good, and whatever is not moderate and bipartisan is "partisan" (or "ideological," same thing) and therefore bad.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | July 28, 2007 6:21 PM

1)Look, the primary concern about Hillary is not over the detailed merits of policies or what's in the national interest.

The concern is that she is another George Bush --
someone who has never accomplished anything on their own merits but rather has had power and wealth given to them by wealthy patrons, hence someone who would never even CONCEIVE of attempting independent judgement but will simply do what her owners tell her to do.

2) Someone who will have absolutely NO loyalty to 99% of US citizens -- someone who will sacrifice the lives of thousands of AMericans in Iran as the price of a few $million in campaign donations.

3) LOOK at how Hillary responds to Obama -- Reuters tells the story:
" The Clinton camp placed comments from her and Obama on her web site, HillaryHub.com, and provided a link to an opinion article written by conservative Charles Krauthammer that described "how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie."
Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2619692620070727?pageNumber=2

4) CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER?? The Neocon fanatic who beat the drums so loudly for the invasion of Iraq --and now is beating the drums for an attack on Iran?

You don't cite Krauthammer if you want to show credible judgment in foreign policy -- you cite Krauthammer only if you want to signal to the wealthy patrons of the Israel Lobby that you are ready to be their Whore. That you will take their directions --via the signals in their sock puppet's column.

5)
One can appreciate why Krauthammer would strongly object to a President who talks to other world leaders -- such a President is more likely to discover just how deceitful people like Krauthammer are.

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 6:59 PM

Here is the link to Hillary's campaign site:
http://www.HillaryHub.com

The Krauthammer Wash Post column is titled "Strike Two".

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 7:02 PM

Slaughter's belief that there are two sides to issues, the Republican and Democrat, and that her Princeton Project "drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas" is amusing to those of us who are independents, members of third parties or permanent residents of the electorate-half that doesn't vote because the Repubs and Dems differ so little on every major issue.

In the last presidential election Kerry agreed with Bush on: Iraq, Patriot Act, corporate welfare, health care, drug war, trade, education testing and Palestine. Tweedledum and tweedledee, as Nader said. New ideas? How about peace, for starters. Oh no, I forget, that's a non-starter. No money in it. Repubs and Dems agree on that.

Now Slaughter wants to paper over these "differences" with bipartisanship, that is to eliminate even those minute party differences that do exist and reach unanimity, and she goes further with punishment for dissenters from her dreamed-for political slumgullion with a warning: "we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger".

Shoot away, Ann-Marie, you won't be the first. As I recall, Woodrow Wilson, the eponym of your school, had a similar attitude toward dissenters.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 28, 2007 7:52 PM

Re "Shoot away, Ann-Marie, you won't be the first. As I recall, Woodrow Wilson, the eponym of your school, had a similar attitude toward dissenters."
--------
1) Ah,yes. Woodrow Wilson, the "Democratic Progressive" who passed the Sedition Act of 1918--
which made it a crime to criticize the US government. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Woodrow Wilson -- Academic Professor from Princeton whose respect for fair debate and Truth led him to put Eugene Debs in prison for 10 years merely because Debs stated that the rich would get richer from WWI and the poor would die. A largely accurate observation for the most part.
Note that Debs' sentence was upheld by the two-faced whores on the US Supreme Court. Something they don't tell our schoolchildren when spewing out bullshit about the "land of the free". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Debs#Opposition_to_World_War_I

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 8:31 PM

Re: The concern is that she is another George Bush --
someone who has never accomplished anything on their own merits but rather has had power and wealth given to them by wealthy patrons, hence someone who would never even CONCEIVE of attempting independent judgement but will simply do what her owners tell her to do.

Simply because someone grew up rich (which, by the way, I don't think Hillary Clinton did) does not necessarily mean that they are Paris Hilton or George Bush (now there's a match!). Both Roosevelts came from wealth and privelege as did several of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by JonF | July 28, 2007 8:40 PM

Woodrow Wilson also established the tradition of some Democratic politicans sacrificing the common people of this country in order to whore for the Israel Lobby.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George noted that one major reason why Britain passed the Balfour Declaration (creating Israel) was to gain the support of American Zionists ( Felix Frankfurter ,Louis Brandeis etc.) who were major
backers of Wilson. See Lloyd George's
Memoirs at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/l-george.html , pages
722, 724, 725, ,734, 735, 737

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 8:44 PM

So when the horse looked at the wall and saw all the laws crossed out and replaced with the one law, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," if she had complained, it would have been a partisan complaint.

Posted by Dumbo | July 28, 2007 8:47 PM

Wow, the two Dons (Williams and Bacon) remind me of the Larouche supporters I encounter at Park Street station in Boston most evenings.

Bacon is the best, with his wistful reference to Nader, displaying no recognition of the events of the past six years.

That means the IRAQ WAR, which would not exist if Gore was president (thanks, Ralph), for the learning challenged--aforementioned Dons.

Posted by Andruw | July 28, 2007 8:48 PM

RE "Simply because someone grew up rich (which, by the way, I don't think Hillary Clinton did) does not necessarily mean that they are Paris Hilton or George Bush "
----------
When I spoke of Hillary and George Bush as being
"someone who has never accomplished anything on their own merits but rather has had power and wealth given to them by wealthy patrons" I was thinking of specific incidents.

In spite of having all the advantages of a wealthy upbringing (Texas Air Guard vice Vietnam, Acceptance at Harvard Business School with mediocre grades, wealth to create his own corporation), George was a drunk and a failed businessman on the verge of bankruptcy who had to be rescued by rich friends (and the taxpayers).

So It is no wonder that George has always been the puppet of those rich friends -- that he gave a $2 Trillion tax cut to the richest people in the country while stealing $Trillions from the Social Security and Medicare accounts of the blue collar workers and the working poor.

But Hillary shows the same signs of dependency upon rich patrons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 9:23 PM

The Village Voice was similarly scathing in its view of "Walmart Progressive" Hillary. See
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html

Posted by Don Williams | July 28, 2007 9:29 PM

Andruw,
Ah, the myth that Nader gave us Bush--it lives on despite the facts.
Except it's not Nader's fault that the Supremes intervened in Florida where Gore beat Bush, that Gore couldn't carry Tennessee and that--given the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in an administration where Gore was the resident hawk--there is no proof that Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq. None.
Finally, Andruw, where I was brought up, not far from the cradle of American freedom, which is Boston, I was taught that anyone could become president. Anyone. That you feel differently, that you think that my vote should be reserved only for certain candidates approved by you, is antithetical to my basic freedoms as a person. And I'm not giving up my personal freedom for the likes of some mental pipsqueek spouting inanities.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 28, 2007 9:59 PM

Thank you, Don Bacon, for further revealing to the world the psychotic ramblings of someone who actually has no stake in the results of elections, besides, of course, feeling really good about your superiority.

And why, as an aside, does a corrupt Supreme Court ruling, and the people of TN, excuse your vote?

Posted by Andruw | July 28, 2007 10:13 PM

Andruw,
You avoid the issues, so I'll help you.
1. What are the specific differences between Repubs and Dems?
2. What evidence is there that Gore would not have gone into Iraq?
3. Why couldn't Gore carry his home state?
4. Why don't half the electorate vote?
5. Do you think that anyone has the right to run for president, or only selections of the two major parties?
6. Do you think that third party candidates should be excluded from presidential debates?
7. Do you agree that third party candidates should be challenged on ballot access in all states?
8. Do you think it's proper for the two major parties to agree on virtually every national issue?
9. Where do you stand on: Iraq, Patriot Act, corporate welfare, health care, drug war, trade, education testing and Palestine?
10. What qualifies you to be in Boston, the birthplace of patriots, not scoundrels?

Posted by Don Bacon | July 28, 2007 10:33 PM

My favorite question is 10.

But, I will attempt to answer.

1) Many. How bout the Supreme Court. Probably doesn't effect you. Or so you think. Or care.

2) He was against the war from day one?

3) Why do you think he didn't carry TN?--because he didn't agree with you?

4) Jeebus.

5) Yes, I believe no one 'has the right'. Liberal Facism!

6) Usually, yes.

7) Third-pary candidates should, yes, follow election laws.

8) HAHAHAHHA

9) Love the Iraq war, Patriot Act, corporate welfare, health care, drug war, trade, education testing and Palestine.

Posted by Andruw | July 28, 2007 11:25 PM

Anne-Marie Slaughter is America's smartest dumb person. Ikenberry is better, but is less photogenic, less likely to frame arguments in a trendy way, spends less time on the executive board of McDonald's, more prone to dense IR prose, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | July 29, 2007 2:59 AM

Re: Except it's not Nader's fault that the Supremes intervened in Florida where Gore beat Bush

Nice try, but no one claims that. If we assume (reasonably) that a large fraction of those Nader votes would have gone to Gore and none to Bush (with the reamining few cast for other third party candidates or not voting) then there would have been dispute in Florida for the Court to intervene in and Gore would have won the state and the presidency.

rE: there is no proof that Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

There's also no proof that a President Gore wouldn't have cut taxes on dividends or ignored the Geneva Coventions or appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, but come on! Do you really think he would have done those things? It simply beggars belief to think the Gore would have done any of Bush's horrible deeds, including invade Iraq. Fact is, Nader is an egomanical ass who in a fit of pique over minor policy differences threw the election to the worst president this country has ever seen.

Posted by Jonf | July 29, 2007 8:13 AM

Slaughter's real point is that she's a moderate who supports moderates in both parties. But instead of arguing for her point of view, she says any criticism of the moderate viewpoint is rude and vitriolic. We should just be grateful that her arguments are so lame. Would you prefer someone who made a forceful and compelling case for, say, keeping 50,000 US troops in Iraq forever?

Posted by Ragout | July 29, 2007 2:58 PM

It simply beggars belief to think the Gore would have done any of Bush's horrible deeds, including invade Iraq.

No, it doesn't. Beligerency toward Iraq was a bipartisan phenomenon and if you think it's an open and shut case that Gore/Lieberman wouldn't have invaded Iraq you are doing some serious wishful thinking. Be glad Bush took the fall on that one.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 3:11 PM

Let's put this Al Gore thing to bed.

Al Gore, February, 2002:
"In the immediate aftermath [of 9/11], I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that support of the President’s conduct of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American people that this will be a long struggle - - for which the nation must be braced and its political leadership united across party lines. . .there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular [of the 'Axis of Evil'] represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. . . In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts."

Speech at CFR Feb 2002
http://www.al-gore-2004.org/gorespeeches/02122002.htm

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 3:44 PM

"Slaughter's real point is that she's a moderate who supports moderates in both parties.

Mark Twain: ""Everything in moderation, including moderation."

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 3:52 PM

Uh, do I really need to point out that we're talking about someone who considers notorious Iran/Contra figure John Negroponte to be a moderate? What did you expect?

Posted by Joe Momma | July 30, 2007 10:36 AM