We Need Partisans
I’ve touched on this before, but I’d like to bring it up again in the context of Mr. Reding’s thoughts:
Every politician plays hardball. Partisanship is inevitable in a free society, and that’s a feature, not a bug. In order for this statement to make sense, Obama must believe 1) that he is somehow above politics, which is transparently ludicrous for any politician to say; and 2) that our politics would be better if we jettisoned the “worn out dogmas” that he doesn’t like.
As a good Burkean, this makes me gag. Our politics is meaningless without the beliefs that President Obama wants to denigrate as being “worn out.” Our politics needs vital disagreement on key issues. Democracy is never about conformity, else it becomes little more than the rule of the mob. But when you’re at the head of the mob, I suppose, mob rule doesn’t sound all that bad.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
Note what Obama is doing here. He’s first calling partisanship “childish” rather than a necessary part of vital democratic debate. He’s then wrapping himself in the mantle of the American character. It’s the classic way that a politician tries to diminish his or her opponents without appearing to do so. First you delegitimize the “other” then you wrap yourself in the values you wish to be seen as embodying. It’s a classic rhetorical trick, and Obama plays it to the hilt.
Well, said Mr. Reding. Well said. Oh, and there is a bit of a difference between being “created equal” (see Declaration of Independence) and “all are equal.”
Disseminate via | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | StumbleUpon
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Chet
21 January 2009, 21:53, UTC
To say that Jay Reding is a “good Burkean” is transparently stupid. And there’s a difference between principled opposition and advocacy for constituency by the minority party and, say, impeaching the President on a manufactured outrage in order to politically paralyze him, or invoking Senate filibuster an unprecedented number of times to roadblock the elected majority.
It remains to be seen what road Congressional Republicans will take, but if they hold true to form, “childishness” (or better: churlishness) will be the order of the day.
Michael Woodring
22 January 2009, 6:52, UTC
Chet,
You’ll need to address Mr. Reding on the subject of Burkeanism. I believe the statement was his.
I would agree that we do not yet know what the opposition (loyal or otherwise) to the president will do in the Congress. However, filibuster is included to ensure that a simple majority does not simply steamroll those who are in the minority. It is a knife that cuts both ways–and should be used carefully as a result.
Chet
22 January 2009, 11:13, UTC
Like a substantial number of conservatives, Jay Reding chooses to insulate himself from rebuttals by providing no comments on his blog nor any way to reach him in person.
However, filibuster is included to ensure that a simple majority does not simply steamroll those who are in the minority.
The Constitution is the sole protection of of the rights of the minority from a tyrannous majority. The filibuster is a perversion of the intent of rules intended to ensure sufficient debate on a given motion. It’s use to block legislation or appointment is a de facto and unconstitutional requirement for a supermajority to pass legislation, when the Constitution requires only a simple majority.
The House has no filibusters, and the rights of the minority party in the House don’t seem to have suffered.
Michael Woodring
22 January 2009, 11:36, UTC
Chet,
If you wish to have a platform by which you can address Mr. Reding or others who “insulate [themselves] from rebuttals” you are welcome to create your own site.
If the filibuster is a perversion, then does that mean the House does not ensure sufficient debate? I believe the members of the House are restricted to set time limits for speaking–hence no filibuster. And, if the new House rules which Pelosi has asked for are put into place, the House would go far to squash any influence which the minority could bring to bear. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003002254
For a political minority to not use every available legal means of ensuring that their voice is heard seems foolish–as the Democrats of previous minority periods would be sure to understand. If you were in a minority position yourself, you would not use a filibuster if it were in your interests? I’m slightly skeptical.
Fastidious
22 January 2009, 20:56, UTC
I wish that Chet would list which prominent conservatives insulate themselves from rebuttals.
Chet
22 January 2009, 21:42, UTC
If you wish to have a platform by which you can address Mr. Reding or others who “insulate [themselves] from rebuttals” you are welcome to create your own site.
That hardly solves the problem if Jay Reding never bothers to read it.
If the filibuster is a perversion, then does that mean the House does not ensure sufficient debate?
I think they have ample time for debate, as much as is necessary, and that simply proves my point – there’s no need to have the filibuster just to ensure sufficient debate.
If you were in a minority position yourself, you would not use a filibuster if it were in your interests?
I’d weigh my immediate interests against the corrosion of the political process. But weighing future outcomes against short-term gain isn’t something Congressional Republicans are known for – hence the “Nuclear Option” controversy of a few years ago, where Republicans countenanced ending the filibuster just to get a few judges confirmed.
Lose the filibuster, sure; but do it for the right reasons. Do it because it’s an unconstitutional super-requirement for legislation, not for immediate political expediency. Unfortunately immediate expediency is all Republicans seem to be capable of.
Michael Woodring
23 January 2009, 8:07, UTC
If someone chooses to read/not read someone else’s site, I do not see it as my concern.
I applaud your selfless desire to keep the political process from being corroded.
Chet
23 January 2009, 15:28, UTC
If someone chooses to read/not read someone else’s site, I do not see it as my concern.
I don’t see it as your concern, either. I just don’t think it speaks very highly of someone when they take the sort of positions and talk the sort of trash Jay Reding talks on a regular basis, and then makes it absolutely impossible for anyone to meaningfully respond.