Bipartisanship = lack of principled debate

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You mean like they do now, except they're still keep keeping the illusion alive. But I guess there is still room to get worse.

with no checks and balances it would be a free for all...imagine ENRON times a billion...without political parties there could be no law...they are the entity that makes laws...with no laws you have chaos - human nature as showed you what people will do when they are not governed by some sort of law - yes, the rotten apple really does spoil the bunch...

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

with no checks and balances it would be a free for all...imagine ENRON times a billion...without political parties there could be no law...they are the entity that makes laws...with no laws you have chaos - human nature as showed you what people will do when they are not governed by some sort of law - yes, the rotten apple really does spoil the bunch...

Fair enough. I'm torn with this myself. Too many laws, not enough needed ones...You gotta wonder if maybe we couldn't do a better job of taking care of ourselves. Because I know they don't have our best interests at heart. They just need us to keep buying into this, paying them our tax money and letting them keep power. Things have got to change.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

i think that bipartisanship means putting the interests of the country ahead of your own personal wants and desires. it means compromise and meeting people halfway to get things done. the fact of the matter is, both parties are always right and always just as wrong. bipartisanship means putting forth your ideals then listening to the other side's critique of it to try and fashion an effective course of action that corrects the blind spots we all have when we adhere unswervingly to personal ideology. partisanship means putting forth your ideals and refusing to even listen to the other side's views or consider that maybe your ideals don't chart the best course of action or response to a problem even if they are well-intentioned.

SweetHarmonics

^^^ excellent points

I really tire of the self-centered, first-person view that many mistake for having some kind of political rationale. It shouldn't have to directly affect somebody for them to be concerned about certain issues. The character trait that allows us to empathize with individuals outside of our peer group is a great thing and we need more of it.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Fair enough. I'm torn with this myself. Too many laws, not enough needed ones...You gotta wonder if maybe we couldn't do a better job of taking care of ourselves. Because I know they don't have our best interests at heart. They just need us to keep buying into this, paying them our tax money and letting them keep power. Things have got to change.

well, the true belief of conservatives is LESS politicians...that's why i hate the party in power now...they aren't true conservatives...anyway...good laws are great...but, bad laws and bad lawmaking is what causes the problem. true compromise rarely happens...and, then, there are issues of laws where no compromise needs to be struck, like with OSHA regulations.

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

People are free to hold certain idealogies, of course. But when it comes to policy making and working with constituents with others ideas you have to compromise or you'll gain no ground at all. Some progress is better than none. If we all had to bend to one idealogy we'd live in a dictatorship.

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

trappedinmyradio

Purple Hawk wrote:

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

the biggest problem with politics is a word contained in the thread title - bipartisinship...instead of bi it should polypartinship where the limit is greater than, oh, say, 4...the problem with your "definition" of leadership is that it fails to consider REPRESENTATION...because that's what our lawmakers are there to do...the sad thing is the lack of interest is a real election where the PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE so that a true representative government is in place.

Jeanwah

Partisanship is what's gotten our country to the point it is today. One party, one way. We need bipartisanship to balance the left and the right, otherwise we'll end up like we have been for the last 6 years. We need voices from both sides to come up with fair and equal solutions; i.e. the People's voice, not just stupid self-centered politicians.

Frankly, I think the country should be run like a business, and not with politicians at all. Because deep down, we know they're all crooks.

Cosmo

Purple Hawk wrote:

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

...
Well... I believe Merriam has a clearer view on the definition here.
Political partisanship, which is what we are talking about, is sticking to the outline and agenda of Political Party leadership and voting along those lines as not to go against your own political party, not necessairly your beliefs.
If you believe in partisanship in our Congress... then you believe in the political parties and the ideals they adhere to. You are not compromising your personal beliefs... you are basically voting for yourself and your constituants, rather than the letter in paranthesis next to your name.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

personally, i prefer politicians who WILL listen to public opinion. they are supposed to represent the majority of people in their district. id rather have a rep who will listen to me and my fellows than a party line man who will tell me what i want to hear until election day and then do whatever he damn well pleases in the name of his personal beleifs.

floyd1975

soulsinging wrote:

personally, i prefer politicians who WILL listen to public opinion. they are supposed to represent the majority of people in their district. id rather have a rep who will listen to me and my fellows than a party line man who will tell me what i want to hear until election day and then do whatever he damn well pleases in the name of his personal beleifs.

I agree to an extent. There are times where the will of the people can be extremely uninformed as popular battle cries and ideas are so easily manipulated. We can see that around this board all the time.