Partisan politics strengthens self-government
(John Andrews in the Denver Post, June 4) Nonpartisan politics is baloney. If you want to beef up self-government, its protections as well as its powers, you need strong political parties. You need parties that are fiercely competitive, yet able to compromise; principled yet pragmatic; cohesive yet diverse; law-abiding but lightly regulated.
Today’s Republicans and Democrats meet this standard pretty well. By comparison with parties in other countries, or in America at other times, they meet it very well. Both parties could do better, however. And the drumbeat of elite opinion condemning “partisanship” threatens to march us in exactly the wrong direction.
These dry generalizations come to life, as the professor will demonstrate shortly, in such spectacles as the mating dance of President Bush and Senator Kennedy on immigration, the slugging match of Bob Beauprez vs. Marc Holtzman for governor, the success of the Salazar brothers, and the failure of public education.
But first let’s see why political parties are a good thing – and why powerful forces keep trying to marginalize them. Our American way, government by consent of the governed, necessitates citizens foreseeing what policies they are voting for, and knowing whom to reward or blame afterward. Parties provide that.
Parties brand their candidates with a distinct approach to governmental responsibilities ahead of an election. They marshal their elected members, legislative or executive, to carry out that approach while in power. Then at the next election they collectively face the voters for accountability on results.
In addition, the rivalry between parties serves a watchdog function to deter deception, corruption, or abuse of power. When these inevitably occur, the underdog barks and bites until the misbehaving top dog is reproved or replaced.
Two-party political competition in a representative republic like ours is noisy, messy, and imperfect. Yet it has proved admirably effective in terms of liberty preserved, prosperity expanded and shared, the common good and common defense upheld. An inelegant and sometimes ragged system, but who could object?
The self-anointed could object, and so could the self-interested; that’s who. Pretensions of “scientific” governance by experts, claiming to discern optimal policies, even to remold human nature itself, landed here from Europe a century ago. They set off a party-weakening trend that still continues. Open primaries, direct initiative, and nonpartisan local government are among the results.
Nonpartisanship is often not merely a banner of idealism, but a cloak for cynicism. When giant media companies preach that party motives are always unworthy and campaign money always dirty, their own clout increases while the credibility of Republican and Democratic organizations wanes. Coincidence? Probably not.
When incumbent politicians on both sides, abetted by the media, legislate campaign finance restrictions that hobble challengers and muzzle political speech by parties and interest groups alike (but not by the press itself), democracy takes a hit. And somewhere James Madison, author of the First Amendment, weeps.
Framing a constitution for a free society, said Madison in Federalist No. 51, involves a balance where “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Though dubious of political parties, he and the other Founders were soon swept up in them. Most scholars – the constitutionalists, anyway, if not the progressives – would agree the balance he sought has been strengthened ever since.
Consider, finally, my examples from the headlines. Party polarization is needed on immigration, where the coziness of a GOP seeking cheap labor and Dems seeking cheap votes gave us the amnesty bill. Party cohesion is needed as Holtzman battles Beauprez to succeed Gov. Owens; my fellow Republicans threatening to sit it out or go third-party only improve Democrat Bill Ritter’s chances.
A partisan growl is needed against the folksy pose of Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. John Salazar, liberal Democrats under their centrist cowboy hats. Party branding is needed in elections for school boards, city councils, and RTD, which spend their ill-managed billions with far too little accountability.
Is the party over for American politics 2006? We better hope not. Democrats and Republicans thriving, along with Libertarians, Greens, and other small fry rising, are our best defense against misrule by the self-interested and self-anointed.
The author can be reached at John@BackBoneAmerica.net
Well said sir, that one deserves a link today. I don’t hear this said often enough. People these days seem so afraid of conflict, when our system is set up to use conflict to benefit the people.
by Mr Bob | Tuesday, Jun 6, 2006 | 8:41 amAs a member of a third party, I concur. The lifeblood of politics itself is in the adherence to some form of ideology. In my case, libertarianism. Occasionally, I’ve been found to be in agreement with my party’s platform. While I’m not marching in locked step with my party, few of my compatriots in other party’s are either.
Those of the opinion that the parties are something of the past may still be looking for the party that best exemplifies their attitudes. Discovery of what a party is all about can seldom be assessed from the sidelines. I’ve been a member of four parties. I’ve gathered knowledge and friendships across party lines.
Party lines are a demarcation point. Yes, it is messy, but people playing in the DMZ generally know when they’re about to step on a land mine. Government is people: They make mistakes; get distracted; have lives – and make compromises to get the job done.
In all of the work that people must do in government, it is nice to have a political group in which to seek an anchor. Just like going to the synagogue; a place for counsel and advisement. When things come out of the other end of the sausage machine, its hard for many people to tell if it was a plan cooked up by a partisan cabal or chopped liver – unless they were watching very closely. And few are.
For those that are watching, time to get involved.
Paul Tiger – Libertarian
by Paul Tiger | Tuesday, Jun 6, 2006 | 7:54 pmDear Sen. Andrews: Outstanding piece on “Partisan Politics Serves Our Democracy”. You are absolutely right about the coziness of Bush/Kennedy, and the fakery of the Salazar brothers, although I read the other day that Marc Holtzman has been disqualified from the primary ballot due to insufficient valid signatures on his nominating petition (I see New York style ballot access politics has come to the Rockies).
For many years now we have been subjected to the elitist judgment that political parties are déclassé and that the choice to be “independent” is so much more enlightened than that to be a Republican or Democrat. Problem is that these people want it both ways: to crow about their
independence while at the same time claiming the right to meddle in the affairs of the parties with whom they choose not to affiliate. Hence such arrogant obscenities as this year’s proposed One Ballot initiative in Oregon, a measure that would implement a system that has repeatedly been rejected by the courts in California and Washington. Not only do they insist on the right to have a say in choosing party nominees for public office, but also to choose party officers and members of party committees often elected as primaries as well!
In 2003, the voters of my home town, New York City, soundly rejected a city charter amendment
promoted by mayor and well-known RINO Mike Bloomberg to replace municipal partisan elections with a non-partisan scheme. What a load of crap. What New York, a city bigger than many states, needs is a functioning Republican party, not non-partisan goo-goo nonsense. I guess it was too much trouble for George Pataki (who was concerned only about his own political hide) or Bloomberg(who was never a GOP stalwart anyway) to show such concern about the future.
I also read recently that California has experienced a decline of 420,000 Dem registrations in the past five years. While this is good for our side, I have yet to see any evidence that the growing numbers of “declines to state” voters cast ballots marked other than D or other left-wing third parties.
Party organizations, such as remain these days, can still assert themselves by making endorsements or non-partisan offices. When I lived in Minnesota in the 1970’s both parties routinely endorsed candidates for municipal office in the Twin Cities and many suburbs. This was in addition to pre-primary endorsements for nominations for partisan offices too!
The assault on political parties has taken its toll. Here in Lyon County, the second fastest growing county in the US, a grand total of three showed at GOP precinct caucuses for seven precincts in this corner of the county in February (and I was out of town too). Our state convention in Mesquite three weeks ago could have been held in a phone booth, with only 135 registered for the affair. Clark County, host county with 1.8 million people and 1944 delegates allocated, produced only 35 in attendance!
I hope that your position will come to be embraced by Democrats as well, for it is their future on the line too. Without strong party machines (yes, machines), only plutocrats and political hustlers will be able to run for office. Spread the word!
Howard Hirsch, nvthumbs@aol.com
by John Andrews | Saturday, Jun 10, 2006 | 9:00 amVice-chairman, Rural Counties Caucus
Nevada Republican State Central Committee
Dayton, Nevada