The value of partisanship?

By David Watkins    

In my class discussions about Barack Obama's inauguration speech this week, the following line garnered a lot of attention:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

The precise meaning of "childish things" we must set aside in this formulation was subject to some debate, but it seems to refer to partisanship and party loyalty. This fits with a major theme of Obama's campaign; he has, over the last 18 months, pledged to lead us out of a period of aggressive partisanship and towards an era of pragmatic politics that puts the good of the nation first, above party politics. While Obama has been a particularly eloquent advocate of this position, he's hardly breaking new ground in political rhetoric. See this post by political theorist Jacob Levy for examples of similar sentiment in the inaugural addresses of the previous four presidents. It is part of the tradition of American Politics to make such pledges (with, to state the obvious, mixed results).

But how desirable is this goal? I think there are reasons to be skeptical. In the 1950's, the Democratic and Republican parties were, in many ways, less partisan than they are now. The real divide in politics at the time were regional, not party based. Southern politicians tended to be quite conservative defenders of southern racial segregationism. They were almost all Democrats, but they bore little relation to more liberal Northern Democrats. Indeed, northern Democrats had a great deal more in common with northern Republicans, politically speaking, than they did with their fellow Democrats from below the Mason-Dixon line.

If one of the reasons we value democratic political participation is because 'we the people' should have a meaningful say in the governance of the country, then a lack of partisanship and party division, arguably, means we might have less of a meaningful choice at the polls. If there is little distinction between the parties, it's harder to convey satisfaction or dissatisfaction with policy through voting. Consider 2006--a major issue in this midterm election was the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. One party mostly stood behind the war, where the other voiced opposition to starting the war in the first place, and advanced a policy of withdrawal. While the election of 2006 can't be reduced entirely to a referendum on the Iraq war, that played a substantial role. If the war had been a bipartisan policy, with little disagreement between the two parties, voters would have been deprived of a meaningful way to express their dissatisfaction with this policy. (Ultimately, little changed as a result of the election, because in large part foreign policy power lies in the hands of the president.)

I'm starting to read a new book by Harvard Political Scientist Nancy Rosenblum, On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. (follow the link for an informative, thorough review). When I've finished the book, I'll share some more of my thoughts her work here on Everyday Politics. The book is a history of what Rosenblum calls "antipartyism" in political discourse, and an effort to push back against this dominant trend and make a more positive case for parties than we're used to seeing. Parties and partisanship, Rosenblum argues, aren't just unavoidable, they are desirable and valuable in their own right.    

Do you think political parties a necessary evil in American politics, or are they have positive value? Is partisanship, as Rosenblum argues, desirable as well as unavoidable, or is it a pathology we can move beyond as we move towards a more mature politics (as Obama's speech suggests)?

Comments

[Jeremy]

Partisanship can be a good thing, as it makes people more willing to stand up for things they truly believe in. The major problem is our binary system. If you're anti-abortion but anti-Iraq war, you don't really have anywhere to go. You're forced to choose which of two beliefs (which are usually very all-or-nothing for most people) you value more. It's a tough choice, and one that may lead to disillusionment with the political system. Maybe this is why we've seen a decline in political participation.

[David Watkins]

Jeremy, that's a very good point, and certainly represents a limitation for effective political participation in a two-party system. (Of course, multi-party systems have their disadvantages as well). While voting can be a powerful act of political participation, it's necessarily a limited and imperfect one as well.

[Justin Bieber Shoes]

Thanks for your good advice. I agree. The more people, the merrier. More weight makes for a faster ride. Thanks David, good advice. We're actually already starting to work.