The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.



The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.  Webster’s opinion aside, I have thought the term insidious described not only something vile and evil, but also something that had a creeping and worsening nature about it; something that might be festering at an alarming rate below the surface in such a way that nobody really notices until it is too late.  I think this accurately describes the current state of partisanship in our government.

Now I want to acknowledge up front that intense partisanship is a necessary evil for that core of party leadership that helps to insure the continuance of the two-party system in our nation.  While I am open, now more than ever, to entertaining the thought of a third national party (Libertarian?), the two-party system is essential to our form of government and someone, somewhere in each party must make certain that the party continues.  That being said, let us draw a distinction to those party members who serve because of their belief in the general principles espoused by that party, both current and historical; those people who accept the premise that you can compromise on practice, but never on principle.   Some of these folks are elected while representing their party.   Some of these folks help with the administrative chores of party continuance such as fundraising and membership drives.  Some of these folks are simply common citizens who choose to reflect their personal civic beliefs through party membership.  These people, who represent the overwhelming majority of each party, should not be expected to “toe the line” during every policy dispute.  They should not be expected to support a “win at all costs” strategy of no compromise and scorched earth.  They should not be expected to engage in the heated and “over the top” rhetoric commonly distributed by the party leaders.  Unfortunately, the line between these folks and the parties leaders has been blurred to point of irrelevance.  The parties leaders presume to speak for all members, while reflecting the hard-core attitudes that only they live, eat, and breathe.  Even more unfortunately, while many of the party members are disturbed by and disagree with this development, it has become accepted and de facto and the members are beat into submission, feeling helpless to change their party.  It has been coming for long time, at least since the early 90’s.  It has been promoted by the leaders of both parties.  It has been foisted in a sly and devious manner on party members who have been more concerned with the business of living and supporting their families.  It has poisoned our legislative capacity to the point where our government is literally dysfunctional.  It is insidious.   

This line must be re-established.  Party leaders must once again understand their primary functions end at a certain point and they must cede some of the authority they have gained through questionable methods back to the party members.  Once again, I emphasize that the elected officials of each party rightly belong in the category of member, not leader.   This allows them the latitude to actually debate in good faith, discuss with civility, and compromise with wisdom, while maintaining the general philosophy of the party.  The leaders must allow this to happen while doing their due diligence of party survivability behind the scenes.

Although both parties have been infected with this malady to a severe degree, I think it is a fair argument to say the Republicans have been beset a bit more than the Democrats.  I ascribe this almost totally to the basic nature of the party’s philosophies.  While the Republicans have a narrower and less adventurous vision of government that seems to somewhat restrict the conservative nature of their party, the bedrock tolerance preached by the Democrats presents their members with a naturally broader latitude for dissent and a greater cushion between continuing as a contrarian member and excommunication.  A Republican member can more readily identify an issue that might bring into question their membership because the view of government is smaller and less complex.  On the other hand, a Democrat member can likely find other party members who share their concerns about general party direction and it requires a bit more disgust with leadership to push them to a point where they consider the wisdom of their party loyalty.  Either way, it is clear that the fringe elements of each party’s leadership cadre has managed to wrest control of the party megaphone and dictate the primary policy positions over the last few years.  This is why I think there might be a window of opportunity for a third party.  Not if the new party simply copies the operating methods of the existing parties, but only if the new party is able to clearly define that “once clear and now blurred” line between the party leaders and the party members.