Partisanship is a toxin and a potent mind-altering drug(thehill.com)
thehill.com
Partisanship is a toxin and a potent mind-altering drug
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/407889-partisanship-is-a-toxin-and-potent-mind-altering-drug
22 comments
There's an important difference between being principled and giving in to tribalistic views of us vs. them. The point of many "anti-partisan missives" is to recognize that there are many things we can—and must—work together on to be effective, and that we often limit ourselves when we stop ourselves from listening and understanding each other because of the labels we place on each other.
Yes, there are things people disagree on, but there are also many that we actually do agree on, and can work to improve if we look beyond partisanship.
Yes, there are things people disagree on, but there are also many that we actually do agree on, and can work to improve if we look beyond partisanship.
Amen to this. Additionally, there is room for dissent within a group that is working together (e.g a political party). If everybody is focussed on towing the party line, then it is very easy for the views of the party to become unchallengeable dogma. Of course there are constructive and unconstructive ways of doing this, but disagreeing shouldn't necessarily be seen as negative.
[deleted]
I think Scott Alexander's essay http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything... covers the salient points of this rather well. It's worth a read if you haven't.
I'm allergic to these sentiments that we are somehow living in dangerous and catastrophic end times, rather than a golden age of mankind. It's bizarre and fearful and, in my opinion, redirects too much energy towards torches and pitchforks rather than productive efforts.
The idea that we're living in a golden age is dangerous and potentially catastrophic. Software engineers may be living in a golden age, but our exploitation of the Earth's resources and animals (including humans) can't continue forever. Things must continue to change.
[deleted]
> I'm allergic to these anti-partisanship missives that keep being voted up.
The moderates are trying to keep the extremes in line.
The moderates are trying to keep the extremes in line.
"The moderates" are tired of having their nuanced opinions tied to passive enablement of the worst possible elements of modern body politic thanks to pithy, oversimplified quotes from dead philosophers making their way through social media from everyone who took polisci 101 and stopped short of 300 level inquiry.
Agreed. Some of these "partisan" issues are about fundamental principles. To not talk about them is to basically surrender the very basics of what I consider right and wrong.
To say “oh, that’s just partisan” is patronizing claptrap.
To say “oh, that’s just partisan” is patronizing claptrap.
That's quite a leap to say that anybody who isn't partisan is "more devoted to order than justice." Frankly I find it indecent how you try to fuse your words and views with King's, unless I missed the part where he says that you must support a political party to move the needle.
I think there are two kinds of partisans. Some simply choose to join the "big tent" that is closest to their own beliefs and do so as a strategic choice. Others adopt a strongly ideological view and allow their logical mind to be overtaken by arguments that support partisan goals.
I think this is analogous to how scientists who were under theocratic rule tried hard to incorporate religious notions into their experimental findings. There is a lot of social and community pressure to go all in and devoutly believe that the people are all good and the policies all reasonable and helpful, even when many of the policies are obviously motivated predominantly by powerful interest groups.
The first kind of partisanship is fine, the second is much more akin to a religion or a clique member and is thus not as likely to act in the interest of democracy.
I think this is analogous to how scientists who were under theocratic rule tried hard to incorporate religious notions into their experimental findings. There is a lot of social and community pressure to go all in and devoutly believe that the people are all good and the policies all reasonable and helpful, even when many of the policies are obviously motivated predominantly by powerful interest groups.
The first kind of partisanship is fine, the second is much more akin to a religion or a clique member and is thus not as likely to act in the interest of democracy.
Australia is suffering from a governance crisis in part caused by one prime minister who said 'the role of her majesties opposition is to oppose' and proceeded as leader of the opposition to do exactly that: he caused opposition to rational policies his own party would otherwise normally have backed, including ones which go to foreign policy, a long held space of bipartisan politics.
He even set out to undermine his own leader, when he was replaced. (An attribute he shared with the labor party leadership, thus not exceptional, but undoubtedly hypocritical since he claimed not to do so)
It's only marginally hyperbolic to say that Tony Abbott's time in opposition as leader laid the seeds for a decade of political gridlock. (Including the trashing of climate policy and science based decision making)
The Westminster system has always admitted that some governance issues can and should be shared by government and opposition. It takes an opposition willing to share to do it.
He even set out to undermine his own leader, when he was replaced. (An attribute he shared with the labor party leadership, thus not exceptional, but undoubtedly hypocritical since he claimed not to do so)
It's only marginally hyperbolic to say that Tony Abbott's time in opposition as leader laid the seeds for a decade of political gridlock. (Including the trashing of climate policy and science based decision making)
The Westminster system has always admitted that some governance issues can and should be shared by government and opposition. It takes an opposition willing to share to do it.
The article's study found that "people really don't want to confront information that could potentially disrupt their worldviews."
This thread's comments against "anti-partisanship" articles show that people also don't want to confront information about them not willing to confront information... etc.
This thread's comments against "anti-partisanship" articles show that people also don't want to confront information about them not willing to confront information... etc.
I believe we all need to be reminded to open our minds and get out of our bubbles. I know I have a hidden bias to read things I already agree with. It’s hard to really try to understand conflicting views without simply dismissing them.
Fair enough, partisanship in itself is fairly obviously a negative psychological and mental force.
But I do worry about claims of anti-partisanship used as a smokescreen. Some issues are merely partisan differences of opinion. Others are matters of life and death.
I don't object to child incarceration, denial of refugees or revocation of citizenship for minorities because I love the Democratic party, I do it because it's wrong and to cast these issues in the light of mere "partisan politics" is to deny their significance.
Yes, partisanship is a strong cognitive bias. That should be uncontroversial. But that still doesn't mean that at a particular moment in history, a particular political party can't be very VERY clearly in the moral and intellectual wrong.
Given arbitrary points A and B, you can't just state that an unbiased person always adheres to (abs(A-B)/2). That's ridiculous, and makes you susceptible to all kinds of goalpost and Overton-window shifting.
The whole point is that you have to address each issue on its own intellectual merits, and I feel like a lot of the anti-partisan content out there this year (particularly from conservative/libertarian sources like this one) is less focused on the truth of the matter and more on granting a patina of legitimacy to ideas that would otherwise be, well, wrong.
But I do worry about claims of anti-partisanship used as a smokescreen. Some issues are merely partisan differences of opinion. Others are matters of life and death.
I don't object to child incarceration, denial of refugees or revocation of citizenship for minorities because I love the Democratic party, I do it because it's wrong and to cast these issues in the light of mere "partisan politics" is to deny their significance.
Yes, partisanship is a strong cognitive bias. That should be uncontroversial. But that still doesn't mean that at a particular moment in history, a particular political party can't be very VERY clearly in the moral and intellectual wrong.
Given arbitrary points A and B, you can't just state that an unbiased person always adheres to (abs(A-B)/2). That's ridiculous, and makes you susceptible to all kinds of goalpost and Overton-window shifting.
The whole point is that you have to address each issue on its own intellectual merits, and I feel like a lot of the anti-partisan content out there this year (particularly from conservative/libertarian sources like this one) is less focused on the truth of the matter and more on granting a patina of legitimacy to ideas that would otherwise be, well, wrong.
You nailed my thoughts. This comes across as a well written, verbose "all-sides-are-the-same" article.
Generalizability in these types of studies should always be questioned.
Generalizability in these types of studies should always be questioned.
Partisanship is our salvation.
When our DC overlords come together to sing the Hallelujah chorus... that is when you should start to worry.
ex: 1999 bank dereg, Iraq/Afghanistan, TARP, Libya/Syria.
When our DC overlords come together to sing the Hallelujah chorus... that is when you should start to worry.
ex: 1999 bank dereg, Iraq/Afghanistan, TARP, Libya/Syria.
As Martin Luther King put it,
> "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
We live in a time of bitter struggle. I may scrupulously avoid partisan statements on HN, but elsewhere, damned if I am going to fight with anything less than all I have.