[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer Munsterhjelm

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  I understand and agree with you 
on plurality and two-party dominion, and their off-shoots, 
gerrymandering and the various forms of corruption.  The difference 
between our views seems to be the focus on finding a 'better way' to 
count votes when (in my opinion) the real problems are the 'who' and the 
'what' we vote for.  Until we enable the people, themselves, to select 
who and what they will vote for, changing the way the votes are counted 
is an exercise in futility.

Although you didn't specifically say so, I take it you do not consider 
the political duopoly "right".  Neither do I.  But neither do I see 
wisdom in fragmentation ... replacing the duopoly with a multitude of 
smaller factions ... because it bypasses the vital step of studying the 
nature of partisanship and how it came to dominate politics, right here 
in the birthplace of 'The Noble Experiment':

    "When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S.
     Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for
     political parties in the governmental order.  Indeed, they
     sought through various constitutional arrangements such as
     separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and
     indirect election of the president by an electoral college to
     insulate the new republic from political parties and factions."
     Professor John F. Bibby[1]

Even so, a 'party system' developed in the United States because our 
early leaders, through ego and to protect their own interest, used their 
standing to consolidate their power.  Politicians in a position to do so 
institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and 
creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

    "The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the
     modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty,
     newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers,
     candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across
     state lines, and patronage."[2]

These features advance party interest at the expense of the public 
interest.  They show how political parties are an embodiment of human 
nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations.  They 
function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.

Political parties are grounded in partisanship.  Partisanship is natural 
for humans.  We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our 
views.  Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the 
knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs.  Partisanship gives 
breadth, depth and volume to our voice.  In and of itself, partisanship 
is not only inevitable, it is healthy.

However, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think 
differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing 
points of view.  They seek the power to impose their views on those who 
don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings.  Communism 
and National Socialism showed these tendencies.  Both had features that 
attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both 
degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained 
control of their governments.

The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they 
attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of 
government.  In general, partisanship is healthy when it gives voice to 
our views.  It is destructive when it achieves power.  All ideologies, 
whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National 
Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose 
their biases on the public.

As close as I can tell, the discussion of methods assumes the existing 
political system, a system based on partisanship, is adequately 
democratic; that all that's necessary is a little tweaking.  That facile 
assumption begs careful examination.

For one thing, while the lack of participation that characterizes modern 
politics is often attributed to the many distractions of modern life, 
how many people recognize that public involvement in political affairs 
is adversely affected by the confrontational nature of partisanship?  In 
all conflicts, from sports and games to politics and war, the 
significance of a contention is greatest for the proponents.  It 
diminishes as the distance from the seat of the conflict grows.

Partisan politics puts most people on the periphery, remote from the 
process.  As outsiders, they are disinclined to participate. 
Politicians mask this indifference by creating 'hot buttons' that 
inspire emotional responses, but this is at the expense of the kind of 
deliberative contemplation required for healthy political debate. 
Adversarial relationships are the antithesis of deliberative relationships.

Another harmful aspect of partisanship is that it subjugates the 
individual to the party.  We laud those who, by their intellect, their 
courage, and their commitment, contributed to advances in civilization. 
  The distribution of such people among the populace is no less now than 
it ever was, but aversion to non-conformance inhibits our ability to 
recognize them.

While people have a tendency to align themselves with others who think 
(more or less) as they do, it is rare that partisans are in complete 
agreement on all points of partisan interest.  That is because there is 
an enormous difference between THINKING something and SAYING that same 
thing.  Our thoughts are modified by little qualifiers.  People who 
agree with seeking a goal of equality (for example) often mentally 
assume the right will be withheld from those deemed unworthy, but seldom 
define what, precisely, constitutes unworthiness.

When we prepare to put thoughts into words, we review our mental 
qualifiers.  If they are substantial, we hold our tongue.  If we think 
them insubstantial, we ignore them and express the thought.  This allows 
others to help mold our ideas for greater clarity and impact.  The 
difference between holding an opinion and discussing that opinion openly 
is significant.  Dr. MacIntyre (cited previously) put his finger on the 
difference and described how the entire community ... our society ... 
would benefit if all the people were allowed to participate in the 
political process.

Politics ought not be about correcting wrongs or empowering segments of 
society.  That is looking backward.  Politics should be about the 
present and the future.  It should be about applying reason to problems 
as they exist and when they arise.  The first step in reaching that goal 
is to devise a method of finding the best of our people as our leaders.

Fred

References:
[1] http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Republican_Party_(United_States)