Here is a term to think about for a couple of minutes. We hear “partisan” thrown about as a descriptor of political behavior all the time, but we rarely wonder if the term is being used correctly. Generally, I hear it in reference to the Democrats and the Republicans party agendas so let me examine the term from that perspective.
My Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition offers the following definition:
“Par·ti·san also par·ti·zan chiefly Brit n [MF partisan, fr. north It dial. partian, fr. part part, party, fr. L part-, pars part] (1555)
“1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; esp : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance”
“A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person;” seems pretty consistent with the way I generally hear the term used. The Republicans are demanding this or the Democrats are holding out for that suggests to me a collective behavior with all the members acting in lock-step on a particular issue. Of course, a political party is just a specialized faction with a name that is widely known. Their cause might be better understood if we view them as conservatives, progressives, or moderates rather than by their party name though I am finding it harder to nail down what any of the political parties really stand for in today’s conversation.
My nephew once referred to my sister as “and unthinking Republican” and pretty much everyone in the room agreed with his portrayal so she would be someone who fits in the “one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance” portion of the definition. I can tell you that logic meant nothing to her if it opposed one of her beliefs. Facts and data were equally suspect in her thinking if they led to a conclusion she didn’t like. Nope, her beliefs were all she needed to get through life and if she needed a new one it didn’t take long to fill the void. Over on the left side of the family the same was often true as well except that they practiced their craft with more subtlety.
I have written before and strongly believe that the political parties and the special interest groups are the real demise of our political system. If elected officials operated according to the will of their constituents instead of the agendas of the factions, I think our system of government would be more like the one our founding fathers designed.
I have also written before about the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United and now they have compounded their work with McCutcheon vs. FEC. The implication of these two landmark decisions cannot be overstated and I am confident that our mailboxes and TV screens will be filled with advertising as November draws near. That said, and with an appropriate disclaimer about how I don’t like corporations being treated like persons, I generally agree with what the supreme court has done. Let’s have a look.
In the Citizen’s United decision the factional donation floodgates were thrown open to allow unlimited political donations to PACs and Parties in support of their advertising campaigns. Freedom of Speech is our first amendment and it applies to all “persons” within our borders so how can we oppose limits? The McCutcheon decision took off the limits of personal donations to these factions and went further to allow donations to as many candidates as a person might want to support. We might not understand all the ramifications today, but it will be clear in November. I am ok with all this simply because to put limits on our freedom of speech would be far worse.
The real problem is that the candidates are getting the benefits of these donations without having to show them on their campaign books. I am of the opinion that factional advertising should be shown as in-kind donations for every candidate who benefits from the ad. Candidates have to show straight monetary donations and in-kind donations where citizens are involved so why not for PACs and Parties?
As Citizens, we have every right to be angry about the way our political system is not working for us whether we are aligned with the right or the left. The system is not working for us and we are all frustrated by the dysfunction and most of us are not sure where to direct our displeasure, but I have an idea. If we just look at who is supposed to do what in our system, we must conclude that the real problem isn’t the massive donations. No, the real problem is the candidate who takes donations from or benefits from donations to factions and allows them self to be swayed away from what is best for their constituents. Our elected officials are the ones who are breaking our trust and we are not holding them accountable for their behavior. Further, those of us who choose not to vote are breaking our trust with our fellow citizens and we are not being held accountable for our behavior either. These two basic trusts form the foundation of our Federal Government and until we decide to restore them, we will certainly continue to witness dysfunction.
The Sausage Grinder is Broken – will you help to fix it?
Comment here or send an email: abrokensausagegrinder@comcast.net
More via Facebook: A Broken Sausage Grinder
More via Twitter: Hank Thomas
Watch on YouTube: A Broken Sausage Grinder