In Defense of Partisanship: Part One, All Politics is Political

In California, History and Politics, Political Ideology, Political Parties, Politics, Politics of Policy on June 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Note: this is the first post from our new contributor, Daraka Larimore-Hall, late of Hoverbike.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Americans love to hate political parties. From the founding of the Republic, parties have been seen as dangerous barriers standing between people and their government. Parties are left completely out of the design of the state as constructed by the Constitution, and early American writing on politics treated their inevitable formation as an almost pathological social problem. As we all know, President Obama plays this stream of public opinion masterfully, even if his “post-partisanship” looks a little strange in the face of Republican discipline in Congress.

Personally, I’m a big fan of parties, mostly because I’m a big fan of organizing as a tool for generally less powerful people to tip the scales in their favor. I certainly understand the allure of politics without parties. Watching cable TV news makes even hardened politicos like me wish for a world with less polarization and conflict. But this longing is a mistake.

At the core of the anti-party argument is a quintessentially American evasion of the political. From the Founding Fathers through to the remarkably successful turn-of-century Progressive movement, we have labored under the utopian notion that there exists a discoverable, apolitical “common good” that is obscured and threatened by corruption, partisanship and self-interest. This thread of American political thought is reflected in contemporary appeals for politicians to “put aside their differences” and just “do what’s right” or “fix all the problems”. A more sinister version of this same desire to rise above politics can be seen in totalitarianisms of both the Right and the Left: if you hand the state over to the right “Folk” or class, politics will simply disappear.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a single “common good”. We don’t all agree on what the best solution is for a problem, or even what the problems are. That’s not a bad thing. What one person sees as the good society would be a dystopia for another. The world that John McCain wants to live in is substantively different than the world that Howard Dean wants to live in. They may agree on sugar imports, but such questions don’t necessarily define their politics. This is true even at the most local level, long a site of the most extreme illusions of non-partisanship. A libertarian small business owner, a hippie and a construction worker may all agree that potholes should be filled. However, despite the old adage, there are, in fact liberal and conservative ways of filling those potholes. Income tax? Parcel tax? Privatized road maintenance? These are all options that imply ideological preference and have huge social and economic repercussions.

Thus, all politics is political. In a democratic society, the way we go about making these decisions is by allowing citizens to choose between policies, even if this is done through representatives. In the United States, however, too often we don’t actually choose between policies or even ideas- we choose strictly between people. “Vote the man (sic), not the party” is so widely held a notion that it sounds almost un-American to disagree.

But voting for individuals doesn’t eliminate those difficult political decisions, it just takes it out of the hands of the voter. Instead of voting based on policy preferences, or even small but effective clues as to policy preferences like party identification, legally nonpartisan elections or “post-partisan” political culture encourages votes based on any number of pieces of information: name recognition (which can be bought), charisma, cultural affinity, gender biases or ethnicity.

Before I get accused of blatant idealism, let me also say that of course, there are also fundamentally competing interests in society. The point here, as well, is that the balance of those interests is achieved through politics. Nowadays, every politician everywhere hopes to score points with the electorate by denouncing “special interests”. What is almost hilariously obvious, however, is that the only common definition of “special interest” appears to be interests which the given politician opposes. Just as “pork” is any sum of money not spent in your own district, any group that you don’t like becomes a “special interest”. Here’s the thing: labor and business are competing interests, as are environmentalists and agribusiness. To the extent that government has a role in mediating those competing interests, we shouldn’t seek to depoliticize the process.

The idea of a disinterested, neutral set of elected officials serving as judges deciding which of these interests will prevail is as fundamentally undemocratic as it is unlikely. If the role of elected officials is to reflect the will of the people, elected officials should be voted in or out based on their views of how these interests should be balanced. Parties play a role in this process, as well, giving voters a clear sense of which collection of interests a politician is aligned with.

In the next section of this essay, I will look at the consequences of the restraints we’ve put on party activity. Of particular interest is the rise of nonpartisan voting systems at the local level, which has lowered voter turnout and advantaged candidates with strong social and financial capital. California’s Progressive experiment with effectively eliminating partisanship at the State Legislative level, thus handing governance over to industry lobbyists is another important case.

– Daraka Larimore-Hall

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

  1. The problem is political parties suppress discussion, discovery and development.

    Political parties have rigged our deomcracy so that we have no democracy.

    Only one state out of the entire union allows individuals to appear on the ballot to run for President without being either filthy rich and privileged, or as a corrupt party insider. And that state has decided to eliminate its democracy.

    Political parties are hte most destructive factor to democracy.

    Instead of political parties, we should have a federal law stating that any citizen of the US may appear on any ballot for any office, from dogcatcher to mayor to senator to president.

    Then perhaps we could have some honest elections and true discussions.

    • I have to say I completely disagree, Frank.

      Political parties are inherent to democracy, and any attempt to get rid of them inevitably leads to its downfall – look at the fall of the French Republic. The French Revolutionaries believed that there should only be one, national will of the people, that the will of the people should accord with the precepts of rational discourse, and that therefore people who disagreed with them were either corrupt, fools, insane, or criminals. Hence the Jacobins overthrew the Girondistes and then the Enrages and Hebertises, then the Thermidorians purged the Jacobins. The Directory then held power undemocratically for four years, first purging the Left, then the Right, then the Left again, always trying to get an election that would vote in only “reasonable men.”

      Political parties naturally flow from our ideological differences, and I think a multitude of parties are a sign of a healthy democracy. The question of how democratic those parties are – now that’s another question.

  2. Re: your essay “In Defense of Partisanship: Part One,” I really like the overall thrust.

    However, I think your essay needs a bit more historical context. We always need to bear in mind that the Enlightenment, especially the Enlightenment as understood by the Revolutionary Generation (a term I prefer to the Founding Fathers, because it brings in the mass politics of the American Revolution) contains an inherent tension between republicanism and liberalism, along with with other ideological tensions – between Protestant millenialism and secularism, between pro-slavery and anti-slavery, between anti-imperialism and racist manifest destiny, etc.

    Republicanism which has always been more friendly to the left, because of its belief in the collective sovereignty of the people (which extends to sovereignty over the means of production under the formulations of so-called “red republicanism”), and because it understands better the inherent connection between political and economic power and
    the need for a “rough equality of wealth” in a republic, nonetheless is the greater offender on the question of the common good.

    Ironically, Madisonian liberalism does recognize the natural origins of parties and partisanship, and denies the concept of the common good. However, it does so from the position that all natural rights belong to the individual, that one of the most fundamental of these is property, and that government must be as minimal as possible to avoid infringing on the rights of the (propertied) individual.

    Madison explicitly locates one of the chief dangers of an unhampered democracy the possibility that the majority might seize the wealth of the minority, although he borrows from Locke a justification for massive inequality of property as justified under the doctrine of natural rights. (All the while ignoring the historical legacy of private property being created through the theft of common land)

    Hence, Madison, who sees that parties are the inevitable result of differences of interests is the one who most seeks to render government incapable of altering them, and it is the Republicans, who most vehemently deny the party as a legitimate vehicle for politics, who believe that government must be strengthened so that it is capable of turning the will of the people into law.

  3. […] In Defense of Partisanship: Part One, All Politics is Political […]

  4. […] In Defense of Partisanship, Part 1 […]

  5. […] As my colleague Daraka Larimore-Hall notes, Americans don’t trust political parties, and our anti-partisanship goes back a long way – from the current crop of Decline To State voters to the Progressives at the turn of the century who crusaded against urban machines, to the 19th century “mugwumps” and “locofocos” who took a stand against party loyalty (not many people know this, but the origin of the political label “liberal” dates back to post-Civil War middle-class Republicans who voted against Grant in 1872 because of their distaste for political patronage and spoilsmanship), to the Founding Fathers who feared “factions” as a threat to their fledgling Republic. […]

  6. […] As my colleague Daraka Larimore-Hall notes, Americans don’t trust political parties, and our anti-partisanship goes back a long way – from the current crop of Decline To State voters to the Progressives at the turn of the century who crusaded against urban machines, to the 19th century “mugwumps” and “locofocos” who took a stand against party loyalty (not many people know this, but the origin of the political label “liberal” dates back to post-Civil War middle-class Republicans who voted against Grant in 1872 because of their distaste for political patronage and spoilsmanship), to the Founding Fathers who feared “factions” as a threat to their fledgling Republic. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: