Letter to the editor:

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.  

There are individuals who view social relations as delicate and unequivocally organic, therefore requiring prudent preservation—but allowing for organic change—and vigilance against social experimentation. There are other individuals who believe economic arrangements should be rearranged as to provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged in society.

These basic, bedrock principles underlie a substantial portion of the conflicts which animate partisan life. More importantly, they are largely irreconcilable.

While I am sure there are many algae eaters on both sides of the aisle who leave no partisan moment left behind, partisans in both parties repel because they disagree, not because the other guy has a picture of Franklin Roosevelt in his office as and not Ronald Reagan.

More consequentially, partisanship hems the debate into intelligible divisions. How insufferable would political discourse be without the flavor and clarifying tonic of partisan rancor? Political discourse would be little more than lifeless discussions over method, as opposed to fundamental questions on societal organization. I am sure the professional bureaucrats in the General Services Administration would appreciate such a trajectory, but it would replace democratic transformation with bureaucratic minimalism.

The framing of our constitution did not exist in a bubbly Nirvana of non-partisanship, or post-partisanship as the hipsters say. The rancor then was just as vile and just as virulent as it is today. Yet, much was accomplished. The purpose and vision of the United States was made intelligible, not through technocratic discussions of method, but through partisan debate.

Ms. Post is welcome to withdraw my invitation, for a society without partisanship is a society that will soon become threadbare and pedantic. 

Lance Cahill

Sophomore business major

913-972-5582

lance.cahill@washburn.edu

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

2 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.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out