TOP TEN THINGS THAT THE MODERN PARTISAN IDEOLOGUE BELIEVES….
1. That other groups “have no real ideas” to offer.
Why that is crap: anyone who scans the full range of print and broadcast media will find substantial proposals on op-ed pages on every issue known to mankind, from anyone you can think of in politics. Include academic journals and other online sources and the idea factory multiplies.
What the ideologue really means: “I won’t even listen to any ideas except my own group’s dogma.”
2. That other groups have “nothing to offer except criticism and negativity.”
Why that is crap: we hear this one when the group holds power in Washington. Of course the other groups are critical and negative about much of the incumbent’s agenda. That is their natural disposition and their role in a true democratic process. To believe otherwise is childish and naïve.
What the ideologue really means: “I can’t stand to hear anyone criticize my cause. They are supposed to stand up and cheer for everything we want, 24/7.”
3. That other groups “can’t make an effective argument” against the partisan’s agenda.
Why that is crap: If American political debate was judged and scored by objective debating and logic criteria, most groups would be deemed to have substantial and compelling arguments, within their own framework of assumptions.
What the ideologue really means: “I refuse to give my opponent a fair hearing and concede that any of his points have merit. My position is right, it’s the only position that can possibly be right and anyone who says otherwise is bad.”
4. That other groups are completely unwilling to compromise.
Why that is crap: Despite the recent gridlock in Congress, America could not function at any level of government without compromise and cooperation between parties. Thousands of examples could be cited every year.
What the ideologue really means: “I want to have everything my way. The other group won’t let me have my way all the time so they are unwilling to give in to what I consider a compromise. My position is so right that no other outcome is justified.”
5. That other groups can’t be objective.
Why that is crap: See #4. The system works because compromise happens all the time based on objective evaluations of what the group can achieve on a given issue at a given time. Furthermore, the best political operatives know their opponents’ positions inside out. They could argue both sides of an issue with equal skill. But they choose to be dogmatic when it comes to their own group’s pubic line, purely to promote their own cause at the expense of objective insight.
What the ideologue really means: “Anyone who doesn’t agree with my partisan agenda, anyone who can’t see how right it is could not possibly be ‘objective’, because they didn’t reach the same conclusions I did.”
6. That the other group is dominated by and exists only to serve “special interests” within that party.
Why that is crap: Political parties exist to bring together various interest groups. Crying about another party’s supporters is the pot calling the kettle black. Total nonsense. Furthermore, no interest group has enough members to bring in a 51% election majority. Both parties work to mobilize the full range of voters they need to win. Blaming special interests for party behavior is like blaming big trucks for traffic jams on city freeways when it’s commuters in cars and SUVs who cause the real problem. The trucks are there, like the special interests, but they aren’t the real issue.
What the ideologue really means: “I don’t like the special interest groups in other parties so I will blame them for everything and exaggerate the importance to discredit the other party based on a false premise.”
7. That the other group doesn’t care about “values”.
Why that is crap: This is a multilayered crock of horse puckey. Most political debate is fired by feelings about values. Talking about “values” is just a code-word for partisan distortions about who or what the other party actually cares about and will act to help in their policy agenda. Partisans lie about and distort which values the other party cares about, or they resent that the other party doesn’t subscribe to the critic’s “values” agenda.
What the ideologue really means: “You won’t parrot my ideological agenda and its inherent assumptions so I will lie as much as necessary to ‘prove’ that you only embrace bad values and never any good ones.”
8. That the other group doesn’t care about “ordinary people”.
Why that is crap: Like the values discussion above, this is absurd. Politicians have to motivate voters by delivering something those voters want (jobs, security, “morality”, etc.) Both parties have extensive histories of passing laws that offered benefits for a majority of Americans. Since this accusation is usually “supported” by an isolated anecdote” (see below) rather than a comprehensive look at the other party’s record, its weakness is evident.
What the ideologue really means: “I need to win over 51% of the voters to get in to office or stay there, so I have to demagogue my opponent’s supposed lack of concern for those same voters. I will lie as much as necessary to accomplish that goal and ignore my opponent’s positive achievements in the process.”
9. That the other group cannot or will not protect America’s interests against other countries.
Why that is crap: Both parties have an extensive record in office defending America, fighting and winning wars, capturing terrorists, etc. Both parties regularly approve the largest military budgets in the world’s history. Lately the argument has been extended to, if you don’t support the most aggressive military policy possible abroad, you are weak. Like points 1-3, this is based on dismissing any merit in your opponent’s position and declaring that only one conclusion is possible in the debate.
What the ideologue really means: “My way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is a wimp.” OR “My way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is a militaristic fascist.”
10. That a single anecdote which discredits an opponent’s policy or viewpoint proves the absolute validity of the partisan’s own position and the absolute failure of everything the opponent has said or done on the issue.
Why that is crap: This is tantamount to saying because one person is killed in an auto accident, all auto transportation is completely unsafe and should be stopped, regardless how much it benefits the overall economy. One tiny bit of information cannot discredit a broader theory or program. One bad teacher does not discredit an education system (which may be totally bad for other reasons that need larger proof). And so on.
What the ideologue really means: “I can’t discredit my opponent with a detailed, objective review of his policies and programs, so I will play on public emotions with a single dramatic anecdote that may or not even be true.” |
