FEEL-GOOD politics really irritate me. Each time we have a major disagreement in this country, commentators come out of the woodwork, pleading for "bipartisanship," which in this context essentially means that nobody is allowed to disagree about anything, no matter how substantive the issue. These last two weeks, election officials in Florida have come under fire for their partisan affiliations. The accusations made by both campaigns imply that only an independent can make fair judgments.
For various reasons, I don't feel entirely comfortable claiming membership in any political party. This doesn't mean, however, that I have disdain for political parties; on the contrary, I am thankful for their existence. Far from a destructive force, dedicated American partisans maintain the health of our republic.
I admit, bickering for the sake of getting your party the upper hand is silly. When this actually occurs, the country suffers. So it's understandable that many people are anxious that someone step above the rancor in this year's presidential election and salvage its legitimacy. Colin Powell, anyone? The impulse to have things settled in a neat and tidy way is natural.
But reasonable partisanship actually is necessary for a healthy republic. Democracy is messy. Running a country requires making hard choices where the options themselves are often messy. Politicians need incentives to take the time to sort all the details instead of using consensus to pass a policy that may serve their ideology, but doesn't work in practice.
Government texts often use the term "loyal opposition" to refer to the minority party in America. To some, this may sound like an oxymoron. Yet the minority party serves as a voice that is loyal to the legitimacy of the republic, but offers an opposing view of how it should be run.
To see what happens without a viable "loyal opposition," we have only to look to Russia today. The country has myriad groups calling themselves parties, but the only real opposition to Putin's party comes from the Communist Party and the ultra-nationalist party, both of which disagree with the government itself. This means that President Vladimir Putin can discredit his opposition as disloyal, while steadily increasing the power of the presidency. In America, however, any new exercise of presidential authority meets with immediate scrutiny by the opposing party, and the president is required to justify his use of executive power.
The political rhetoric that bipartisan policies are the best policies comes from myth, not fact. In the mid-1990s, the political scientist David Mayhew studied laws passed with bipartisan majorities - the majority - and those passed by one party.
The bipartisan bills had their share of successes and failures, but not one partisan bill turned out a disaster ("The Bipartisanship Diversion," U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 23, 1996). Both parties supported the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which cemented our involvement in Vietnam. Social Security, on the other hand, was pushed through by a dedicated Democratic majority.
President Clinton has had to contend with a Republican Congress through the majority of his presidency, and Americans have complained about the party rivalry that has followed. Texas Gov. George W. Bush's contention that he could be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with a large portion of the electorate that complains about what it sees as the parties' inability to work together for the common good.
Yet Americans are really talking out of both sides of their mouths when they say they want bipartisanship. On the presidential level, the candidate seen as centrist appears more successful. Yet in Congressional races all over the country, the candidates with the most longevity seem also to be the most firmly identified with party: Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Tom Delay and Dick Gephardt, to name a few.
Despite what pundits say, gridlock is not always a bad thing. Our political system was designed to emphasize quality of laws over quantity. The fact that bills are easy to introduce in Congress, but only a fraction become law, is no accident. Only laws that can stand the scrutiny of committee hearings and floor debate by both sides survive to become a permanent aspect of our political system.
Having a political system where politicians serve their country through loyalty to a political party has proved a blessing to America. Yet the public's attraction to Bush's promises of bipartisanship show dissatisfaction with what they see as childish rivalries winning over public service. What the public fails to see is that partisan individuals are often the most dedicated because they feel that their party's ideology can make an important difference in improving this country. If that's not a desire to serve, I don't know what is.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
