Why I love Political Partisanship

Why I Love Political Partisanship

I mostly use CNN and Newsweek as my sources for the happenings of Washington D.C. One repeating message coming from many commentators is the growing partisanship of all the politicians on both sides of the aisle – how disagreements in the chamber are turning personal. And the subsequent analysis is that government is becoming paralyzed because those Republicans and Democrats just refuse to cooperate.

On the surface, this may sound scary, perhaps even signaling a growing apprehension between people on the Left with people on the Right. Political discourse over dinner may prove awkward, but it doesn't prevent the dishes from getting cleaned. So people apply the same logic to Washington D.C., attempt to identify government as worse now than it was fifteen years ago, and conclude that things are bad because, gosh darnit, those politicians just can’t get along!

I agree with everything asserted above, except that partisanship is actually a good thing for America. Here are five reasons why:

1) Accountability to constituents.

Imagine a coal mine that supports Hagensburg, a small but depressed town within the larger depressed county, Hagenopia. Someone representing Hagenopia is elected to go to Washington D.C. and advocate for Hagensburg (the largest city) in the Federal government. In a republic, we elect someone that will represent us, trying to do what is best for the people. And does this politician necessarily care about the rest of the state or country? Sure, but we hope that he puts Hagensburg ahead of Los Angeles since the people of Hagensburg gave him his job. That's the idea, right? We want politicians that are responsive to their constituents.

So this representative may personally favor moves to green energy, but acknowledges that the move destroys the life stream of this town. So when an environmental bill comes looking for his signature and support, assuming that it will somehow hurt the mining industry in favor of wind energy, what should he do? He knows his constituents don't support the bill, so should he support the bill anyway? Or should he rationalize that, despite his constituent's objections, he knows better and should just do it. Ideally, he would ask for time to try and convince Hagensburg to diversify their economy and move toward more profitable and promising industry. But if he compromises on this bill (voting in favor to get some piece of legislation in the future), he betrays the town's trust that he would act in their best interest -- and their best interest may be to keep the mine operating as it has been. The politician should be uncompromising in his devotion to representing the voices of the town, which means he either needs to convince the town they should change without force (as in, he shouldn't want to bankrupt the mining company to serve his personal energy preferences) or reject the environmental bill.

2) Let’s be mindful of which issues where we want bipartisanship.

If a politician is elected for her position on abortion, she needs to recognize her constituents weren't looking for a compromise. They didn't offer a mandate stating "be pro-life until a new scientific study reveals fetuses are 100% unconscious up until 8 months." The people wanted a stonewalled position on abortion. And if a candidate finds herself in a moral dilemma, try to convince the people. If the people refuse to be convinced, they will elect someone more responsive to their beliefs. And since so many voters choose to focus on one or two issues from a prospective candidate, it would appear the people elect many politicians for advocacy on social questions.

3) Partisan politics assures us the country will stay relatively moderate over long periods of time.

Consider what the Republican congress did when they had complete control -- moved us to the right with the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Stem Cell research and so on. Then in 2006, the country sent Democrats to congress and started a shift to the left, culminating with 2008 Democrat control of the legislative and executive branches. Democrats passed TARP, health care reform, Wall Street reform andothers. Come this November, the country will probably give congress to Republicans to help center our newly minted left leanings. Then in a few years the country will swing back again. Since 2000, we've gone to the right, then the left, and starting back to the right -- overall, everything is balanced and moderate. If we had 10 years of Republican control, we would be even further right than now. And then the likely response would be a hard swing left. It’s those firm and expedient swings that gave us McCarthyism, Roe v. Wade, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama – heroes to some, minions of Hell to others.

4) Partisan politics ensures government moves slowly.

This is a wonderful part of American democracy. Since we were born from a revolution, the founders understood that government can usurp power from the people. When government moves quickly, they usurp power from us quicker with fewer checks on their authority. What Americans really want is a government that thinks long and hard about their decisions. Consider it – do we want them to raise our taxes after long debate or because of a political compromise? Do we want them to pass unexamined legislation faster or slower? Would the Patriot Act have been better if it were passed a month earlier or later? Would health care legislation look better if passed a year earlier or later (remember it took a lot of time and debate to remove the Stupak Amendment…also a long time to remove the Public Option)? I don't think we should get into the attitude of "the time for debate is over. Now is the time for action." Debate should never be considered over -- even when the action starts, debate is essential to identify and illuminate our changing goals.

5) When all politicians are friends, are their public disagreements facades?

I prefer politicians who adamantly disagree and refuse to extend laurels of friendship to one another. Think about competing interest groups – The Brady Campaign and the NRA – going for drinks after a hard day on the job. Other than looking a little strange, would it be worth questioning the authenticity for each respective lobbyist? We all have experience with someone that possessed the exact antithesis to our personal beliefs and would never consider seeing that personal socially. Or perhaps we can tolerate the person as long as politics never comes up, but nonetheless, a precarious situation. For the same reason, if a Democrat and Republican disagreeing in the chamber end their days happily at a bar, are they really advocating for us? Or is it simply their day job – like a briefcase left at the office, lacking a legitimate reason to pick it up when nobody’s watching?

Remember, even if the government is frozen into inaction, we survived without whatever law is currently on the docket and could survive longer without the new law taking effect. Politicians tend to come together in times of great strife or emergency, and as inspiring it is to see bipartisanship in action, I hope there can be a few more disagreements when it comes to our education, taxes, health care, social security and privacy.