[EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It

[Michael Allan]

(sorry, this a repost, with corrected subscripts)

Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Several days ago, I promised to post the rationale for my belief
> that partisan politics, as practiced in the United States, are
> profoundly anti-democratic.  That rationale follows.  I hope those
> who disagree with my conclusions on the issues listed will describe
> their dissent, in detail, on a point-by-point basis.

I was waiting for your post.  I was expecting a description of your
method, but you provided a critique of modern democracy - particularly
of the party system.

> ... We have the technological ability to build a better system...

We cannot be certain of that, yet.  I will explain why.  At issue is a
proposed structural transformation to society.  But any such
transformation (T) raises these critical questions:

  T(p) Practical: What is the practice? In principle, is it feasible?

  T(q) Probable: What is the method of transformation? Is it likely,
       in fact, to happen?

  T(m) Moral: What are the expected consequences?  What good?  What
       evil?

What's more, there is no single T at issue.  Rather there are multiple
Ti, where i = 0, 1, 2, ... N.  We must look at all Ti(p,q,m),
answering each of the following questions:

  T0(p)   T1(p)   T2(p)     TN(p)

  T0(q)   T1(q)   T2(q) ... TN(q)

  T0(m)   T1(m)   T2(m)     TN(m)

T0 is the null transformation (status quo).  Your post looked at a
tiny piece of T0 - T0(m=parties,evil) - the evil aspects of the
existing party system.

The crucial thing, however, is that, despite those evil aspects, the
transformation TO is a fact.  The fact of its success proves that T0
was both practical and probable.  In other words, it had good answers
to T0(p,q).

Do you follow?  If your argument of T0(m=parties,evil) is valid, then
it follows that the moral question T(m) is not essential to a
successful transformation.  In other words, even if we have the
technology to transform society, we have no guarantee that the result
will be an improvement.  We may succeed in doing harm.

> ... We must use it.

We have no choice, it is true.  T cannot easily be constrained, except
by T(p,q).  Failing that, it will probably happen.

> The foregoing comments explain why I believe party politics are
> profoundly anti-democratic.  I hope those who disagree with this
> assessment will explain how it errs, in detail.  I'd like to be able
> to consider other points of view before suggesting a way we can
> select better representatives.  Perhaps that will seed the careful
> analysis and discussion necessary for the delineation of a more
> democratic electoral method ... a political system that puts public
> interest above partisanship; a method that responds to vested
> interests but is not controlled by them.

It's interesting, because we might learn something from the parties.
After all, the introduction of the party system was arguably the most
recent major transformation (T0).  You focus on T0(m), but what of
T0(q)?  The parties somehow transformed the workings of our
institutions, without transforming their structure.  How did they do
that?  Can the trick be repeated?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/