Guest post: And Chris Matthews will get all weepy
Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on In Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan.
On a broader note: I’m getting really really tired of this constant use of “partisan” as a dismissive sneer. Not by people here, I mean in the discourse generally. Centrist political pundits are the worst for this.
In practically every other country on earth, it’s understood, accepted, and even appreciated that (1) voters have differing ideologies and policy preferences; and (2) political parties are a logical, sensible, and inevitable way to organize along ideological and policy lines and get things done. Of course, it’s generally acknowledged that there are times to set aside partisanship and come together in a crisis, or to call out corruption and wrongdoing within your own party, but the general idea of political parties isn’t treated as some filthy shameful practice.
Only in America (as far as I can tell), is that the case, thanks to the Founding Fathers having a bug up their asses about political parties, and relatedly hoping that America would somehow be “spared” that vulgar practice. As a result, American political institutions are designed to produce gridlock under fairly mild conditions. The only reason shit ever got done, aside from brief intervals of one-party dominance, is that for huge stretches of history, American parties were these weird coalitions of ideologically incoherent groups, where northern lefties and racist southern reactionaries would belong to the same party. And so you could peel off some liberal Republicans to support liberal policies, or some Southern Democrats to support conservative policies. And yet those were the supposed “good old days” — when parties really were more like the Red Team and the Blue Team rather than any principled differences in policy.
But of course we’re going to have to play this game again, where the eventual 2020 Dem nominee has to pay lip service to how he or she will magically find a way to get Republican Congresspeople to support his or her policies. Joe Biden is particularly going to make me nauseous with tales of the good old days when he would hang out and drink with GOP senators, because you can’t let a little thing like opposition to civil rights get in the way of enjoying the old boys’ club! And Chris Matthews will get all weepy at the thought of Reagan and Tip O’Neill coming together over a glass of whiskey, and oh, how Irish eyes were smiling, and can’t we go back to those halcyon days….
There are a number of charts floating around that claim to assess news sources on the axes of “bias” and “accuracy”. I am wary of the versions that seem not to recognize the existence of biased but accurate news outlets. I prefer such outlets; they present issues I consider important. Attempts to stay “unbiased” often seem patronizing, and miss aspects of interest. Yet I know many people who decry “bias” in the media, as if it’s the same as inaccuracy, or at least worse.
Sackbut, on that note, I read a book recently that was a history of the environmental movement, and the attempts of the author to remain “objective” and “unbiased” led to gems of language that dismissed the idea that the environment was in any way in danger, by constant “they claimed” and “they thought” in a form that sounded…sneery.
Neutrality is often a myth; the very language of neutrality often leads to dismissing claims that are demonstrably accurate, and giving equal weight to claims that are demonstrably false. And sneering.
In a way, I can respect the Republicans for actually having the spine to say that they are a political party with political goals, even if those goals are made of spite and ignorance. But holy shit, their counterparts are infuriating. The US Democratic Party is the only party I have ever seen that actively tries to avoid being seen as partisan, which of course has led to them compromising to conservatism on virtually every issue.
Holms, it doesn’t help that almost every pundit out there (with the possible exception of a few like Rachel Maddow) is telling them that they need to be “more middle of the road”, which said pundits (and all too many Democratic candidates) means to scoot further right. They are already on the right shoulder, so middle of the road would look pretty good right now. It would move them at least back over to a par with Nixon; then they could perhaps start to get progressive.
They are making the mistake of playing for Republican votes. They will at most get a few who are not tied so much to the brand that they can’t vote for a Democrat, but they will lose more and more Democratic votes if they continue to listen to pundits who scream “radical” every time they propose something that would have sounded okay to R. M. Nixon.
And what’s even weirder. Last year, my new colleague was angry and disenchanted with Dems because he perceived them as too radical and leftist, and proclaimed himself to be “moderate”. This year, he is moaning and crying because they are too conservative and right wing, and proclaims they need to be more “progressive” to get his vote. So which is it, youngster? Are you wiling to stand and be counted as believing for something, rather than just crying about what isn’t? Or what you perceive isn’t?
Iknklast @4, the irony there being that since 2016 the Democratic Party has moved (slightly) to the left, which makes me wonder about your colleagues understanding of political spectrum and how to gauge it, or possibly his own place on the spectrum (which may be moving around without him actually realising it), or possibly his level of (self) honesty.
Rob, those are things I have wondered myself. He is inconsistent. Ah, but he is young. Hopefully he will mature and develop a philosophy that at least is internally coherent.
So, not trans then.
YNNB, his view on trans mirrors that on this site, other than the concern of the people on this site for the wellbeing of women, which he does not appear to share. He merely thinks it is biological nonsense to think a male can be a female just by saying so.