« The Ultimate Trojan Horse meme virus | Main | China is still a dictatorship fact of the day* »

April 17, 2007

Allowing Partisan Politics To Define America.

A buddy of mine sent this link. Here's my reply:

Scott,
The founding fathers were terrified of parties and partisanship. They hated the very idea that Free Citizens might vote for men over ideas. And yet... Thomas Jefferson founded the very first political party in America. His "Democratic-Republican, (later: "Democratic") Party championed a week central government. When he was VP, he did everything in his power to stifle President Adam's agenda. It did not begin personally, but it ended that way...

There are Roughly a dozen partisan offices that I vote for, and roughly that many more non-partisan offices that I vote for. There are probably a dozen more measures on each and every ballot. I'm a seriously political guy. I've had dates where we did nothing more than study what was on the ballot. Every year around election time, my family gets together and does even more studying of the issues and candidates. When I walk into a ballot booth, I still don't know all that I should about who and what I am voting for...

What a party does is create a world view, and then analyze issues in light of that world view. Knowing that the Republican Party are for a certain issue or candidate tells me a whole lot about that issue or candidate. A whole lot of my work is done for me...

The problem (as illustrated by your link) is that party politics doesn't seem to be about "ought" any longer, but rather "is". We are not fighting over whether or not church and state _ought_ to be separated, but rather over whether or not evolution _is_ true. We don't argue about if we _ought_ to be in Iraq, but whether or not Iraq _is_ improving. We aren't arguing about what the size of government _ought_ to be, but rather over whether cutting taxes _is_ allowing for the expansion of government...

The problem isn't that we have parties: Political parties are good and useful things to have. The problem isn't that partisanship is creating its own ideas about best ways of governing the country. Those are good useful debates. The problem is that at least one major party has lost it's grip on reality. That will kill us all...

Posted by Andrew at April 17, 2007 10:09 AM

Comments

But there's a point to the post. (Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thing, but I've scanned it well enough. *smile* ) Parties aren't able to encompass everyone's personal ideologies.

There's an economic graph that's very interesting that I can show you about this. (Thursday, no?) But what it says is that in a two party system, the two parties will move closer toward the center to gain more votes. Every time they do that, they lose some of their core ideology. That's what's happening now. (*cough*, you don't have to be pro-choice to be a Dem.)

There's also going to be a problem with ideology and parties. I think you should recognize (embrace?) that problem. But that doesn't mean they should be gotten away with.

Parties are like unions. They give direction to a voice. They give a leader to a lot of shouting.

But, I DISAGREE with your difference between ought and is. I think that's a theoretical difference, one that I haven't seen in the litterature that I've read. Yet, I agree with the general idea of the point. There was a lot more fluidity in the past. As we have grown as a nation, we've also become less flexible in our political stature. We still have Supreme Court Justices who promote the use of the Constitution in the exact manner meant during its creation. If it doesn't say privacy, internet, etc., then that right doesn't exist.

To a degree your statement is correct about ought vs is. Ought symbolizes an alternative position. Is states fact.

*platypus sound*

Posted by: Wanton Expressions [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 17, 2007 06:00 PM