Letter to the editor:

Two cheers for societal partisanship

Washburn Review

Published: Friday, March 5, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:04

Image courtesy of mediavenue.com

Partisanship, in polite society, is regarded in the same manner as paper cuts, long red-lights, and the ever ubiquitous pothole in the streets of Topeka. To regard this illegitimate by-product of American democracy—for only something this evil may be illegitimate—as a useful instrument is to ask Emily Post to withdraw your invitation from decent society.

If, and only if, Republicans and Democrats—and do not let us forget the marginalized third-partiers (Libertarians will surely not let you forget)—were to get together and sing praises to the Delphic Oracle of amorphous Compromise we could secure the promises of efficient government.

Alas, such a scenario is just as improbable as it is undesirable.

It is improbable because we are a nation of conflicting sensibilities—primarily consisting of conservatism and liberalism—and it is undesirable because warring political factions prevent concentrations of power.

1 2

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Lance

Sun Mar 7 2010 14:21

One has to consider word constraints when reading any letter-to-the editor.

I cannot give a successful inductive proof without exceeding the word limit, so a bullet point method of advancing an argument had to suffice.

I disagree that a logical flow wasn't present. Here is the breakdown of the letter (you may certainly disagree whether the structure was present):

*The benefits of cooperation, or non-partisanship. ("Efficient government", as in no 'pork barrel' politics; action on issues Americans are concerned about, and so forth).

*Reasons why such a situation is not probable. One could say this is not relevant, as the editorial I responded to was making a normative argument and ignoring positivist implications. But, institutional structures largely determine the trajectory of American politics, and ignoring these structures is dangers even if only making a normative argument.

*Why partisanship is good, beyond the simple fact it exists. I supported this with a more general argument of warring factions (James Madison FTW!), and then concluded with an example of the American founding. I was going to include a separate paragraph about the Anti-Federalist papers, but decided to avoid that due to word limit constraints.

I agree "an impressive list of metaphors and great language usage can't replace actually answering the question posed", but I disagree on the question of whether I actually answered the question.

I disagreed with the implicit premise of the editorial, that division upon partisan lines is harmful. I,e. I find it beneficial for government to be inefficient, and less able to accomplish the goals of those who hold her reigns.

---Lance

A Plebian

Fri Mar 5 2010 12:55

I admire your accomplished vocabulary. I wish you had structured this into some kind of argument. As I read it, I could not find any cohesive flow to what you were saying other. I seems like a flowery list of bulletpoints on why you think bipartisanship is better than agreements. The article you are replying to seemed like a common plea from one of the many frustrated individuals who feels like the two-party system is ineffective and inefficient (I noticed you were a business major) to which you fired back with something analogous to "If it aint broke, don't fix it!" Even an impressive list of metaphors and great language usage can't replace actually answering the question posed.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now