Partisanship 2010 Style

In The Daily Beast today (February 23, 2010)Tunku Varadarajan wrote an interesting piece called "Why Partisan Bickering Works." I immediately clicked on the post because I agree with the sentiment. The tone of partisanship circa 2010 isn't all that different from any other era; it is just the pervasiveness that wears one down. But I think Varadarajan goes too far in his tribute to partisan politics.

Our system is designed in such a way that healthy partisanship guards against tyranny by the majority. Getting something passed in the U.S. Congress is supposed to be difficult and contentious. The contentiousness ideally is what keeps us from knee jerk reactions and ill-advised initiatives. Would that we had had a little more partisan contentiousness when we set off to war against Iraq. But I don't think the founding fathers anticipated the ability of talk radio and cable news to amplify the partisanship simply to build audience share. Andrew Jackson in Henry Clay had an infinitely more formidable partisan foe than anyone Obama faces today. John McCain? John Boehner of the perpetual tan? Come on! I doubt, however, that the average 19th century American citizen was bombarded with speaking points to the same extent we are. Therefore, the anger was probably not as intense, or certainly not as public. That doesn't excuse Obama's up and down year, but it does explain it to a certain extent.

Varadarajan asks "what is wrong with partisanship in a democracy where information is freely available?" Good question, but I'll pose another. What is wrong with partisanship in a democracy where information and misinformation are both freely available and virtually indistinguishable? Plenty. I read in Politico the other day that 47% of the voters in this country believe their income taxes have been raised to unsustainable heights by the Obama administration. Maybe they haven't gotten the memo that 95% of us received tax breaks since Obama took office. What good is information that is calculated to be misleading? How does that help a democracy function?

Later on he says "Partisanship is all about finding policy flaws in politicians, rather like finding character flaws." The problem is that since the partisan brinksmanship has little factual basis, all the arguments become ad hominem. We are not really able to engage in a discussion about anything substantive because everybody is so worried about death panels and tax increases that haven't happened. Please, all you partisans out there, start pointing out policy flaws instead of indulging in unsubstantiated character assassination.

The other day on Meet the Press David Gregory asked the panel if there was any way to break up the partisan log jam in Congress. A republican congressman whose name I forget answered his question definitively when he said that the log jam was the clear result of a democratic leadership that was out of touch with the American people. His democratic counterpart on the show interrupted to point out the obstinate refusal of republicans to cooperate. So much for bi-partisanship.

Finally, and here's the point I really take exception to, Varadarajan (I think I've typed that name enough now to have the spelling committed to memory) says that "democrats and progressives hate partisanship for the same reason they hate the market. Both are built on the idea of a permanent state of competition that produces the public good only indirectly, and through what's called the 'invisible hand'."

All I can say is that the market's behavior the last few years and the behavior of those who drive the market have certainly resulted in the public good indirectly. So indirectly, in fact, that I am having a hard time seeing how I have benefitted. I guess I can take umbrage in the fact that all of those credit derivative swappers were actively promoting the public good instead of greedily stuffing their own pockets. And this "invisible hand" that stock market "experts" keep talking about is a crock. I don't even want to think about where the "invisible hand" has inserted itself, but I do know that Adam Smith, the coiner of the term in The Wealth of Nations only used the phrase ONCE in the entire book and that was in reference to the advisability of Scotsmen to invest in Scotland rather than looking elsewhere. The "invisible hand" would see to it that Scotland's economy would keep plugging away. Of course, I'm paraphrasing here.

John Keynes had an apt quote.

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

Of course Varadarajan would point out that I am one of those market hating liberal progressives. I would respond by telling him where to put his "invisible hand."