A Wrest Coast Perspective

by Frank Darbe
PARTISAN!!!

Get in a tense political discussion and there is one thing I guarantee, at some point in the discussion, one or both sides will resort to calling the other “PARTISAN.” This usually happens when one or both sides reach the point of intractability where they have either nothing constructive to say or could not find a decent argument with both hands and a roadmap if the argument was tattooed to their keister. It is not the word, Partisan, that bothers me. It is what these users means by Partisan. In common political parlance, Partisan has come to mean that the person with whom you are discussing politics simply fails to agree with everything you are saying and refuses to bow down and salaam the righteous truth that you and your side represent. NON-PARTISAN has come to mean that the person with whom you are discussing politics agrees with absolutely everything you are saying and is willing to bow down and salaam your vast and prescient wisdom.

So what are Partisans anyway? As a noun Partisan means, “A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.” That doesn’t sound so bad to me. Think about the French Partisans. They were men and women dedicated to freedom. Many of them were tortured, taken out behind a barn, and shot down by firing squad. As an adjective, we mean it a bit differently. The person we call Partisan is, “Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause.” The term “biased” is used there, but it is used in a neutral and purely descriptive way. A Partisan Chocolatier would be passionate about chocolate. He or she would have delicious arguments. A Partisan surfer would be passionate about surfing. Their opinion of wind and wave would be equally powerful and acceptable. So why should a Partisan Democrat or a Partisan Republican mean “someone who is so wrong I wouldn’t allow him or her to kiss my sphincter with some one else’s lips.” This pejorative term “Partisan” does not fit the meaning of the word as a noun or an adjective. So where does Partisan leave the strict noun or adjectival form and become a dirty word that shouldn’t be used in mixed company?

Partisan becomes a pejorative term when people no longer accept disagreement. When used in pejorative sense, Partisan is not being used as the defined noun or adjective. It is used to say that Partisan is utterly wrong and I am utterly right. It is used to say that person is not with us, he is against us. That partisan is a traitor. That partisan is a creature so low that a good word or phrase like “asshole” or “Son of a bitch” can no longer be used to describe him or her. It is a sign of absolute and utter intolerance. When you define a scholar as Partisan, you have stated that the scholar is really an ignorant and pitiful excuse for a descendant of an ape, unworthy of having his or her ideas discussed. You dismiss that person with the ad homonym argument and do not have to worry about proving anything. When you describe a group as Partisan, you are saying that group cannot now or ever have anything important to say so there is no need to address or discuss their ideas in the open market place.

How have we come to this? How have we as a nation reached a point where the accusation of Partisan is so devastating that no other argument needs to be made? Why is there such a large segment of society on both sides of the aisle that are so intolerant that there is simply no room under the Constitution for a Partisan? Why has absolute intolerance of a different opinion become so important to those who use Partisan in the pejorative sense? The answer as I see it is that use of Partisan as an attack is intellectual dishonesty on a level that is staggering. It is the last refuge of a person who does not have the capacity to defend his ideas or the ability to recognize when an idea is indefensible. It is a person who doesn’t really believe his ideas are strong enough to defend with evidence and proof or even an admission of simple faith.

Make no mistake about it; I do consider myself a Partisan. The term in reference to myself, however, is strictly limited to the Noun and the Adjective definition listed in the second paragraph. I am more than willing to discuss my differences with others. Bring a good, logical argument that does not rely on changing the definition of words to fit a narrow bias or serve only as an ad homynym arugment and you may even sway me in your favor. If you can’t defend your stand, be willing to say that your belief is based on faith, even if that sounds hollow and weak. But if you are going to simply dismiss evidence with the word Partisan rather than address the evidence with counter proof of your own, you take the pejorative definition of Partisan onto yourself.

Please allow me, Frank, to suggest an interpretation of the word "partisan" when used as a pejorative. In my American Heritage dictionary, the # 2 definition of partisan as an adjective is: "Devoted to or biased in support of a single party or cause: partisan politics."

In my view, that's what people mean when they view partisans as people so blinkered by narrow, group loyalty that they can't think straight anymore. It coincides with partisan's use as a noun when it denotes someone devoted to a "faction." Devotion to party or cause has a positive connotation. Devotion to faction sounds negative.

Fierce partisanship in that sense leads people to excuse deeds by the objects of their loyalty when they might abhor the very same deed in an opponent. Extreme political partisans tend to apply double standards, or to become hypocrites. Feminists seem capable of lionizing Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton no matter how repellent their personal behavior. Devotees of Pat Robertson convince themselves he's God's messenger and a virtual statesman even when he calls for the assassination of a foreign head of state. Animal rights fanatics can tear open mink cages and turn the animals loose to starve or destroy medical research laboratories with a clear conscience. Russian Revolutionists claiming to act on behalf of the poor ended up reinstating slavery and murdering tens of millions of citizens.

I feel that attaching too much passion to a charismatic leader or cause distorts the thinking of the loyalist. I read a wonderful book about this topic when I was a teenager, called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. The gist of the book was that fanatics are feeding some emotional hunger inside themselves and lose their grip on what is feasible in the real world.

I feel that extreme partisanship degrades the body politic because it turns off too many moderates. Sane people direct constructive passions towards family, art, hobbies and adventure; they prefer not to indulge fantasies about transforming human nature or human affairs overnight. The reason the American Revolution was one of the few successful ones is that the Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the limitations of human nature and they didn't try to do too much.

The most destructive example of partisanship in contemporary American politics is the recurring temptation to criminalize policy differences. A faction of Republicans started it by impeaching Clinton for his sexcapades. IMHO that was a proxy battle for their chronic failure to win public support for codifying "family values" with a Constitutional amendment banning abortion and homosexual behavior. A faction of Democrats have retaliated by calling for Bush's impeachment for his conduct of the Iraq War.

As disheartening as they may be, neither skirt-chasing by prominent officials nor pre-emptive war are without precedent. I don't see the good in pretending that they are, or infusing so much passion into the debate. Extreme partisanship causes many people to think, "Who needs this filth?" and to wash their hands of politics.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tom Gelsthorpe,

In this discussion of partisanship it would very helpful if we all looked in the mirror and recognized our own partisanship before we criticize its existence in someone else. I have often been partisan in my comments and will be again. Just because I recognize one of my character defects does not mean I will cease to have it.

Your points are very good, Senator. I hope I haven't been guilty of criticizing others for sins in which I gleefully indulge. The internet is such a saint-rich environment, I surely wouldn't want to contaminate it with curmudgeonism.

As for character defects, gol-lee! I hope we're not expected to get too deeply into those. One of my worst is "failure to be succinct." If I started to own up to the rest of them, I might be banned from this website for taking up too much space.

Tom, you make many good points and I appreciate your evaluation.

One of things that I was trying to point out was that for those of us out here in real world, not the politicians precisely, the accusation of partisanship is used as a statement to say, "The other side is lieing. I don't have to answer any of your statement or disprove your assertions because you are obviously partisan and lying." By accusing one side or the other of partisanship, we generally are saying that we do not have to answer any point raised. If it is partisan, by its nature it is wrong. That is not what the word means, but the acrimony that goes with it is what we as a society have given it.

When many of us say "we are non-partisan" we are really saying that "our side has all the answers and you can just shut up. Its my way or the highway."

Senator, I never said Partisan is a character defect. I don't see it that way. I readily admitted in the column that I am a Partisan. I'm not ashamed of it and you shouldn't be either. That is what those people who claim to be our leaders want us to feel. Remember the definition:

quote:

Partisan - “A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.”

The problem that I see is when Partisan becomes the counter argument. There are those on this board and on others that one of their first arguments is that "That group is partisan" or "That person is partisan." There is no attempt to evaluate the information. There is no attempt to explain the rational of a deeply held belief.

If you said that "the Heritage Foundation study of January 2008 shows that for profit Health care insurance systems are the most cost efficient." I could answer, "the Heritage Foundation is Partisan." They are, indeed, a Partisan Conservative Think Tank. But, in calling them Partisan I don't address any information in their study. I discount it because I disagree with the group. I am making an ad homonym attack.

A better way would be to pull out studies that show that Canada's health cares system costs only XXX.XX per person covered in Canada while our American system costs XXX.XX per person covered. We could discuss the number of people covered by each side. We could discuss the relative value of Health Care in individual lives.

We can discuss the differences between these systems, between the sources of information. We may or may not change our minds, but we are discussing the information not attacking the messenger.

Frank:

I thought the Senator was spoofing the idea that partisanship is a character defect. I took him up on that, tongue-in-cheek, as you can see.

Let's go back to the definition of the noun:
"A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person or idea."

You make good points that "partisan" (some other emotionally-charged words, too) can turn into a weasel word that deflects serious discussion rather than considers the substance. It becomes a conversation-stopper rather than starter.

My feeling is that factions tend to be less receptive to reason than parties. Real-life political parties are usually coalitions; the factions within, especially the narrower, louder ones, are the ones that inhibit progress.

Causes, persons and ideas can vary a great deal. Some are clearly better than others. It's sort of a modern fad that coming right out and saying that is "judgemental" and that being judgmental is bad. But how can you say such a thing and make any sense? To condemn being judgemental is making a judgement. IMHO we need the entire capacity of our cantaloupe-sized brains to make informed judgements -- and we damn well better, lest we swirl in the tumult of our emotions. We only need walnut-sized parts of the brain and our adrenal glands to experience powerful emotions.

Some ideas hobble the mind; others quicken it. Religious dogma has always troubled me for that reason. Many religions, from the Greek Myth of Prometheus to the story of Adam and Eve, start with parables showing that people are not supposed to think for themselves and that God will punish them if they do. The Koran starts out claiming to be the word of Allah and forbids man to question the truth of it. Simple minded creature that I am, I take these doctrines to mean that it's better to be stupid.

Spirituality, in the sense of feeling awe for the vastness and mystery of creation, doesn't bother me at all. It leads a person down the path of humility. Then we can realize that a cantaloupe-sized brain is really a meager instrument, and that we should be acutely aware of our limitations but do the best we can. That's a very different and more uplifting principle than believing it's better to be stupid.

Morality doesn't bother me, either, even though some of the distinctions get a little nit-picky. (Pork is bad; chicken's okay; fur is bad; leather's okay. Unless you're a vegan, in which case even eggs are bad and cloth sneakers are about it, footwear-wise. Beating your wife's okay, as long as the stick is no thicker than your thumb. Etc.)

My point is if we try not to be totally beastly, think about moral choices and do the best we can, we can usually agree on a few rough principles of fair play.

Coming back to the realm of political partisanship, one of the most ticklish questions for me is redistributive taxation. Most ethical systems agree that stealing (i.e. taking something that doesn't belong to you) is bad. Even very disparate political systems agree implicitly that human beings are territorial. They need to "own" things -- personal space, key items, and have a degree of autonomy in trade, which requires the use of money. Hence, systemic rules of property ownership, commerce and jurisdiction are necessary to conduct our material affairs in an orderly fashion. Theft is not merely a personal failing; it harms everyone by threatening to create chaos.

When you start authorizing politicians to diverge from setting basic rules and explicity authorize them to take property and money from some persons with the intention of redistributing them to other persons, you're getting perilously close to saying that stealing is okay under special circumstances.

This is an area where substance must be carefully discussed. Simply shouting, "My people say it's okay and we're going to get away with it!" is not good enough.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tom Gelsthorpe,

Discussing the spirituality and morality around Partisanship is not the point I was making.

Partisan specifically is used by many as an ad homonym attack. By saying a person or group is partisan, they seem to think that they have provided a magical miracle counter argument. People disagree with you, therefore they are partisan and you no longer have to address the issue.

We are, in fact not discussing morality, taxation, or even any specific side of an argument. The point here is to get people to recognize that labeling something Partisan is intellectual laziness and cowardice.

I agree, Frank, that calling someone "partisan" can serve as a pretext for dismissing the substance of that person's proposal. My examples were probably too far off topic. I was trying to say that when a person becomes too passionate about loyalty to their group's position, rational thought can suffer.

Is labeling a person or position "partisan" cowardly? I dunno. Not when the charge is true, it isn't. Besides, calling someone a coward doesn't usually make them more receptive to your next comment.

The left seems to feel that the right is made up of warmongers who want to throw widows and orphans out in the snow to starve. The right seems to feel that the left is made up of appeasers and freeloaders who think government can spend all it has for loveliness and never count the cost. Neither sentiment is accurate.

Shouting across an unbridgeable divide of accusation and counteraccusation doesn't get us where we want to go. In the absence of dictatorship, the other side of a losing election, whatever position that represents, isn't going to go away or suddenly become irrelevant. That pretty much leaves compromise as the practical choice. Compromise seems to irritate partisans.

My next question for you is: Where do we go from here?

Tom, if someone labels a person or a group partisan but refuses to address what they say, it is either intellectual laziness or intellectual cowardice.

I can not think of any group or individual that does not have some bias that colors their thinking. The fact that a group or a person is biased is not an argument to dump everything they say down the crapper. Historically, the Wall Street Journal has had great reporting, but their editorial page is considered to be biased on the Conservative side. The New York Times has historically good reporting, but their editorial page is considered to have a liberal bias. Should the news from either paper (I am not talking about the editorial pages) be discounted merely because of the papers bias, their partisan stance.

It is not unusual for me to post a story from the New York Times or another so called liberal source and be told that it is Partisan. I've seen the Wall Street Journal called "Partisan" by those on the left and simply discounted.

I will happily point out that a source is biased, but that doesn't mean that I won't look at what they have to say or address a question that is raised by them.

If the only argument that another person has is that the source is biased or partisan, then they he or she should stay away from the table.

To answer where we go form here?

My reason for posting this was just to make people aware. Many of us don't realize that what is a safe and accepted argument among a group of like minded individuals doesn't work on the other side.

On many threads the level of frustration and even anger can reach very high levels. We don't have to agree that my sources of information trump yours, or the other way around. But if we are going to discus things intelligently, we really need to be willing to discuss the merits of the issues rather than dismissing them out of hand.

Partisanship becomes a problem when a person's attachment to the idea they feel strongly about prohibits the discussion of ideas related to the subject. It really becomes a problem when to be part of the discussion one must agree with the idea that the person is partisan about.

I must assume that you are refering to our conversation about KSM. I will say that partisanship becomes a problem when someone is unable to defend their ideas and insists on changing the subject.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Darbe,

You can assume that if you want to. It is tough to defend an idea when every attempt to do so is considered changing the subject.

Senator when someone repeats the same false idea over and over again in order to change the subject, a discussion isn't possible.

Your idea that you attempted to prove on that other thread was that becasue KSM was a bad man and the terrorists are all bad men who did criminal acts, we as a nation are justified to do whatever we want. You have tried to make ths point repeatedly, and it is always wrong. In a society based on laws with definite moral and ethical concepts the end never justifies the means.

It is a "false idea" because you decided it was. A discussion does not begin nor can it continue when someone is forced to accept someone else's beliefs.