I've been remiss in not linking to my article in the current print issue of The Atlantic, but here it is: "The Case for Partisanship: Why polarization is good for us".
« Insulting Your Voters | Main | Incompetence »
Polarize Me
22 Mar 2008 09:43 am
Comments (23)
Indeed, which is why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton! The post-partisan idea will always fail.
Timothy Burke had some interesting, but I think wrongheaded, comments about the article at his blog:
http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=540
(or click my name).
Sure, Madison was right after all. I'm sure Barack Obama would agree, he's a smart guy. Doesn't it bother you how eager he is to win through deceit and manipulation?
I second the rec. for the Swarthmore blog. Good stuff there.
My observation would be that there are still issues that cut across party lines in the way that race did in the 50s.
In the 50s, Matt observes, there were people in both parties who supported civil rights, but you couldn't calculate that a vote for either party would actually turn out to be a vote for civil rights. The same thing is true now of immigration. The Republican coalition is divided between chamber-of-commerce types and nativists, and the Democratic coalition is divided between anti-nativists and people who might support immigration restrictions to protect the environment or working-class wages.
But this sort of thing will always be true about some issues, and I'm not sure it refutes the main point of Matt's article.
This is an interesting perspective. What is good for the 1950s is not necessarily good today though. So when the parties break down in a system that is built for parties you need to restore them.
Barack Obama's point--quite rightly so--is that politics has been getting progressively more partisan and polarised, to the point where it is deeply unhealthy and divisive. The irony is that the parties don't really differ all that much on the substantial issues: look at how the Democrats have financed the Iraq war despite all the heated and divisive rhetoric; look at how they have backed up all the threats against Iran. You could say the same about free trade: the rhetortic and the reality are really quite different. See how grass-roots disillusionment there was on both sides until Obama got going. At the moment we have all the disadvantages of bitterness with the disadvantages of little real choice.
That Obama's aspiration to unite and lead the whole of the country is considered so weird indicates how far this process has gone. It is no wonder he is energising and drawing people into the process for the first time.
As I've commented when Matt has pushed this idea before, his arguments only make sense if you think the parties are reflecting some real difference in policy positions among Americans. But in reality the partisan squabbling in Washington today is not reflective of serious policy differences on the major issues of our day. There is broad public agreement that we need universal health care. There is broad public agreement that we need to get the hell out of Iraq. There is broad public agreement that we need to take serious action on climate change. None of these things get done because Congress is obsessed with political point-scoring and maneuvering that is not rooted in the voting public's policy preferences. No important issues of public concern have been seriously addressed by Congress in recent memory. This is not the system operating as it was intended.
Also, to assert that the New Partisanship has been bad for lobbyists is one of the most jaw-droppingly asinine things I've read in a very long time. If things have been so hard on lobbyists, why have their numbers grown by an order of magnitude in the last decade?
The article has a point, but it's argument is too cute for its own good. Do we really want a two party system full of politicians that put party loyalty ahead of their own convictions? Do we really want them making nakedly intellectually dishonest arguments because their party bosses are leaning on them?
Mental health and substance abuse parity is one example--there were enough votes to pass the legislation, a majority of Republican Senators and Representatives supported it, and the Republican President said he'd sign it. The bill languished because Republican party leaders decided that it was not a "Republican issue".
The parties can't communicate with each other--not only are they incapable of compromising on solutions, they can't agree on simple facts in the most general way and their response to every disagreement is to accuse the other of bad motives.
Even worse, this toxic way to relate to people we disagree with trickles down to the public. It used to be that you had to avoid abortion, now you can't talk about anything remotely political with friends and family with another party affiliation.
To be sure, party identification should mean something, but the lines should not be so hardened that anyone who disagrees is stupid or disloyal to America. We need more than the myopic and false binary world of Washington.
Indeed, which is why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton! The post-partisan idea will always fail.
That was what had me leaning towards Hillary, as well, except that while she is strongly partisan as a person, her policy stances are the sort of post-partisan, conservative-Dem stances that have caused us so much trouble over the years. I'd rather have a post-partisan candidate fighting for partisan causes than the other way around.
There's a difference between being partisan because you want your policies to triumph and the opposition's policies to be tossed into the dustbin of history and partisan because you want to be spiteful. I appreciate and respect the sort of spite-vote that Hillary represents, but Obama is my first choice because he wins on the partisan merits.
Sorry that comment wasn't expressed very well. Bruce Wilder's comment on the swathmore article is very good. Aside from providing some excellent background to the bipartisan period that Matt discusses he points out that the recent neo-crazy takeover of the Republicans has distorted things quite a bit.
My point was that there is a difference between "four legs good; two legs bad" mindless partizan politics and true diversity. We seem to have lots of the former and less of the latter than appearances suggest; I would say the appearance of diversity is deceptive.
I agree with Dan Kervick; I think it is highly ironic that Matt should choose this moment to advance this particular argument, the very antithesis of party cohesion and discipline.
As long as the "2 parties" get their $$$ from the same fat cats & special interests, any "polarization" in D.C. will be what it's always been - a dog and pony show, a good cop bad cop routine designed to con the sheeple.
[Matt's] arguments only make sense if you think the parties are reflecting some real difference in policy positions among Americans.(....) The parties can't communicate with each other--not only are they incapable of compromising on solutions, they can't agree on simple facts in the most general way and their response to every disagreement is to accuse the other of bad motives. [emp. mine]
Exactly right. What we've been living through lately is not ideological polarization so much as a kind of sports team polarization - in other words, a polarization about (almost) nothing at all. I will third the observation that, as far as MY's argument does make sense, it somewhat undercuts Obama's unfortunate 'end partisanship' tack.
The question that those opposed to partisanship should answer is what the alternative for determining the direction the country should take. Most people who criticize partisanship come at it from one of the following angles:
1. The McCain-style 'cut the bullshit'. This is basically claiming that there's a solution everyone agrees with, but can't be reached because of pointless disagreements or 'special interests'. This requires denying the reality of the actual conflicting interests, which is as silly in US politics as it is for Iraqi politics.
2. The elite consensus model, a la JFK's Yale speech. The problem with this is that while elites may agree, the voters do not. There's a reason for the subtitle of Perlstein's book.
3. The false consciousness model, a la 'What's the Matter with Kansas'. Everyone really agrees with me, but the other guys have fooled them. This is wrong for socialism, and wrong for everything else too. Kansas votes Republican because they want what the Republicans are offering. This is wrong of them, but that's democracy.
4. The Barack Obama model, where partisanship is defined as opposition to policies you want to enact. While good politics (I'm an Obama supporter), it again doesn't really hold up.
All of these fundamentally require assuming away disagreement. The reason we have had parties, and partisanship, is that people have real disagreements on issues.
I don't really see how increasingly polarization has helped us at all in the 15 years. Sure, I don't have to use my brain at the ballot box, but then again, every other 364 days of the year the politician I'm voting for isn't using theirs either.
There is broad public agreement that we need universal health care
At the same time there is also broad opposition to "socialized medicine".
The McCain-style 'cut the bullshit'. This is basically claiming that there's a solution everyone agrees with, but can't be reached because of pointless disagreements or 'special interests'. This requires denying the reality of the actual conflicting interests, which is as silly in US politics as it is for Iraqi politics.
Right, when Wisconsinites start car bombing those fucking Illinois bastards you might have a useful analogy. As I said above, our current partisanship does not break around actual policy differences. I would have no problem with partisanship if that accurately reflected the state of the American people. But it really doesn't. There is a pretty broad consensus on most of the major policy questions facing us, from health care to Iraq to climate change to social security. Not only are there consensus positions, but generally those are the liberal positions.
This state of polarization makes a lot of sense when you consider it from that perspective. Its effect is to paralyze government. It serves the Reagan/Norquist grand conservative narrative that government is ineffective, corrupt and useless, and undermines the progressive narrative wherein government can be beneficial. Partisan polarization has been driven from the outset by conservative outlets, think tanks, and witch hunts. This is the frame they want us all to view politics through, because it serves their objectives. It's lethal to the progressive cause.
But Matt wants to help them. Thanks, buddy.
Hey, nice move Matt. Way to step on your candidate's message at crunch time.
Matt isn't as naive as to think "partisanship is good" is a successful campaign motto.
Right, when Wisconsinites start car bombing those fucking Illinois bastards you might have a useful analogy.
I think you need to give the Midwest peace process time to work.
Partisan polarization has been driven from the outset by conservative outlets, think tanks, and witch hunts.
And you think liberals turning the other cheek would somehow help enact liberal policies ?
The way only to enact liberal policies is to elect enough Democrats. That means exposing the wingnuts like Santurum,the racists like Allen, the currupt like Burns, and the faux-moderate like Chaffe.
Marc, Matt, Andrew, and all Atlantic, you are all so behind, that I question your analysis.
To recap people. I mentioned that when I visited DC last year, I met with Mr. Juan Williams at his book reading.
He was gracious to sign. Then I shook his hands, and told him the Dem ticket: Obama-Richardson. This was last summer. Last summer. Before first votes were cast in Iowa.
He smiled. He said that would be a great ticket.
Months later I went to similar book reading, by the blowhart Chris Matthews (Keith Olberman, is the biggest blowhard in America, no competition to this hypocritic snob). When Chris and Keith are on the TV at a same time, I feel like voting for GOP. I can Rush more than these two blowhards.
Well, Matthews looked at me and said: We shall see [as in - you sucker: my america will never have these two guys in the ticket]. he was pulling for HRC those days (last Nov.) now of course he is singing a different tune - just like Matt Y. who suddenly discovered Obama this feb.
Man, these DC analysts are not even ready to be my interns.
MattY opines: That said, what usually causes the rise of new parties, or the loosening and confusion of existing ones, is the emergence of new social conflicts that are so overwhelmingly important that they strain the existing coalitions, scrambling party positions on everything else.
Considering that both parties are deeply corrupt as evidenced by their support for illegal activity, perhaps a third party could gain a lot of support by opposing that illegal activity. (Note: MattY will have no idea what I'm referring to.)
And you think liberals turning the other cheek would somehow help enact liberal policies ?
The proper response is to refuse to accept this frame and turn the tables, precisely Obama is attempting to do. Rather than respond in kind, call this behavior out for the bullshit it is. Focus the public in on the pettiness, incompetence, and obstructionism of this approach to government. Give voters a stark choice between promoting this brand of partisanship or rejecting it. I believe, perhaps naively, that people will do the right thing. Particularly at this moment in time. People have had ample opportunity to see that the Republican approach produces Bad Government, and are fairly sick of it.
(Note: MattY will have no idea what I'm referring to.)
Yeah . . . but then, neither does anyone else, so . . .
Comments closed April 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hey, nice move Matt. Way to step on your candidate's message at crunch time.
Posted by Dan Kervick | March 22, 2008 9:55 AM