Fortunately, your comments give me several starting points. So let’s address a few of these questions that go to the heart of the UnParty and what it’s all about:
Doug Ross: So when McCain rails against Democrats and Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama in the coming months (as he has already done repeatedly in the Republican debates), we can expect you to pull your endorsement?
Me: No, of course not. We’ve endorsed both McCain and Obama. If they are both the nominees, we expect each to compete strongly, each trying to convince us that he’s better than the other guy. This will be a great thing for the country, as it would be a choice between good and better, rather that the usual "bad or worse" choice that the parties give us.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, even less so. I would expect almost every day of that campaign would make me gladder and gladder that we endorsed McCain.
dave faust: Ideas matter.
And as long as there are competing ideas that can’t really co-exist with one another if implemented, there will be the ‘dreaded scourge’ of partisanship (which I happen to think is a good thing)… I agree with you that it’s sad that american politics have degenerated into the name-calling us/them mess it is today, but at the heart of it all is an elemental debate about ideas that are often mutually exclusive….
Me: Yes, absolutely! Ideas matter! That’s why parties are such a destructive force. The two political parties are coagulations of ideas and impulses that have little to do with each other. They are not coherent. People who think war is never the answer make common cause with, say, people who think partial-birth abortions should be federally funded EVEN THOUGH THOSE IDEAS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. Meanwhile, folks who despise ‘amnesty’ in immigration and want less permeable borders form common cause with people who believe there must never be a new tax for any reason at any time — again, EVEN THOUGH THOSE IDEAS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER (and can even directly conflict, as when you have to grow government to shut down your border).
Now that’s fine that these people want to associate freely, and form alliances for the purposes of getting candidates elected. The problem is when these alliances cease to be ad hoc — when the alliance itself becomes the overriding thing. Then, the IDEAS are ill-served. The parties, by demanding orthodoxy and loyalty, encourage adherents to be intellectually dishonest. If the anti-war person hears a good idea for ending war from someone who wants to strengthen borders, THEY should form an alliance for the purpose of getting that goal done. (We have seen this among Ron Paul supporters, but because he IS iconoclastic, he never had a prayer of getting the party’s nomination.) The anti-war person shouldn’t be held back because securing borders is seen as "conservative," or "a Republican idea."
Think about it: Both liberals who want to raise wages and improve working conditions, and conservatives who want… to put it the way they would, "want to enforce the law," or protect their culture, or whatever … could probably have shut down the borders a while back, but party boundaries have prevented them from thinking of working together.
Alliances that should be provisional and ad hoc — such as a tax-hater joining with a moral authoritarian — and formed around specific bills or proposals become something bigger than the ideas.
So it is that when McCain and the others in the Gang of 14 make a deal that results in seating conservative judges who would otherwise have been held up, GOP "conservatives" hate McCain because he worked with Democrats to do it! And so forth…
weldon VII: So, Brad, instead of the Left fighting the Right, you see the parties fighting the Unparty as the meaningful struggle?
Pot, meet kettle.
Me: I offer the alternative, and get caught in the crossfire, because Left and Right don’t want there to be an alternative. So that leads me to conclude that the real split is between the left and right orthodoxies on the one hand, and those of us who want to chuck their whole silly game on the other. Hence my column. Hell, I don’t want to fight. But I’m certainly not going to sit still for their foolishness.
Richard L. Wolfe: I wonder if those in the press who so gleefully backed McCain will stay the course if young Obama is the opponent?
Me: Yes. Absolutely. We will "stay the course" of liking both, and may the better of two fine candidates win! What’s so hard to understand about this? I’ll tell you — your thinking is canalized to the point that you simply can’t understand the simple fact that a reasonable person could like both of these guys. You think it has to be either-or, but it doesn’t. Sure, only one can be president, but you don’t have to dislike one to like the other.
bud: As I’ve said on a number of occasions I don’t find partisanship necessarily a bad thing. We’re all partisan for the causes we support. And that includes Brad, whose brand of big-government partisanship is just as strident as those of us on either the left or right. So rather than fight it, let’s embrace our nation as one of partisans.
Me: bud has always had trouble understanding what I’m talking about when I decry partisanship. Read what I said to dave above. People should fight for an idea. What they should NOT fight for is a TEAM that may agree with them on one issue, but not on a host of others. A person who truly THINKS about ideas will agree with Democrats on some things, and with Republicans on others. It’s when you choose sides and stick to it that ideas start to be undermined.
H.M. Murdock: The Gingrich-led Republicans started the current rift in American politics during the early 90’s, as the GOP repeatedly attempted to embarrass or demean the Clintons over issues that had nothing to do with public policy or running the country–Nannygate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, Vince Foster, Monica, etc.
The public still is paying the price for the GOP’s scorched earth policy against the Clintons and the Dems. Swiftboating now is expected, tolerated, and even admired by some kooks who would rather win a political argument than advance the best interests of the country.
Me: You’re missing the fact that to Republicans, Democrats started all the "-gate" stuff, with "Water-" and "Iran-". So they wanted to get the Dems back for those. And once again, this is the problem with parties. There’s no reason that a person outraged over Watergate wouldn’t also be outraged over Whitewater. Nor should a political label require you to be outraged over any two of the things that your party has taken on as a cause. As for "Swiftboating" — I need to do a separate post on that. It’s come to be freighted with meaning among Democrats that I’m not sure the invented verb sustains well.
bud: I’m going to step outside the subject area to relate a story about the free-market and how unscrupulous businesses can be….
Me: Thanks, bud. You’re making my point for me. I’m always saying that my own experience causes me to have no more faith in large private organizations than in government. This is why I argue so vehemently with the people who think the public sector is always inefficient, bureaucratic and wasteful and that the private sector is always better. Life experiences don’t bear this out. People just know more about the public stupidities and waste because they’re public. When I express ideas based on these life experiences, bud calls me a "big government guy." Truth is, I just don’t see that the private sector is better, and therefore I’m not dismissive of the government trying to address problems.
I realize those answers may be too stream-of-consciousness to make complete sense, but I wanted to hold up my end of the conversation, and only had minutes to do so. Gotta run. I’m sure we’ll revisit all these topics.
