In a two-party system, being wildly partisan is just stupid
I was tooling around a right-wing “oh my god, the media’s liberal” Web site called Newsbusters the other day for kicks.
It’s basically one of those republican-funded sites, like the democrats have with Media Matters. Each are more or less meaningless to the state of the world today, because all they do is attract the wildly partisan.
It was funny to visit the site, though, and depressing how thoroughly so many people are willing to sell out everything in order to help forward their party. That really goes both ways, too. Whether republican or democrat, once you start apologizing for a politician’s behavior, that’s already too far, you’ve crossed the line.
Because they work for us. They need to be endlessly scrutinized, not covered up. Not argued for.
There’s no doubt that one’s political beliefs are somehow connected to the ego. It’s very easy to argue politics, and fun to fight over them.
In the end, however, treating politics as a sport helps nothing. And in a two-party system where less and less separates the parties, it’s just plain foolish.
–WKW
April 18th, 2006 at 9:24 am
“I was tooling around a right-wing “oh my god, the media’s liberal” Web site called Newsbusters the other day for kicks.” – Most rational people will realize that the problem with the media is not that they are liberal or even supportive of Democratic Party but that what they do is done under the guise of “impartiality” and “dedication to facts”.
Any person who has written a story based on actual events or has done witness interviews knows that point of view and personal biases are very, very relevant. On the flip side of the argument is the claim that the press has not been hard enough on Republicans and this is also true as evidence by the amount of confusion surrounding every bit of information that comes out. However, there is a huge difference between “not being hard enough” and “favoring”; that is the main thrust of the argument concerning bias in the press corps.
“t’s basically one of those republican-funded sites, like the democrats have with Media Matters. Each are more or less meaningless to the state of the world today, because all they do is attract the wildly partisan.”
This is very true since it seems to attract the extremes on both sides of the political aisle; the only saving grace for ‘Newsbusters’ on this score is the lack of censorship by the people running the site. While a post may be hidden due to language abuse it is still easily assessable with a single click.
“It was funny to visit the site, though, and depressing how thoroughly so many people are willing to sell out everything in order to help forward their party. That really goes both ways, too. Whether republican or democrat, once you start apologizing for a politician’s behavior, that’s already too far, you’ve crossed the line.” –
I would agree that apologizing for inappropriate behavior is crossing the line. But before making such an accusation one must be careful that someone’s ideology has not been insulted as well. To say, I think Tom Delay used strong arm tactics to alter the voting districts in Texas, is a legitimate statement but argumentative in respect that many people believe the districts were unfair to begin with and that voting lines have been changed all around the country for years in favor for the party in power. However, should Delay be found guilty it would be accurate to say; Tom Delay is a corrupt politician that abused his powers and illegally influenced the vote in Texas. Anyone who supported Delay under these circumstances would have “crossed the line”.
“Because they work for us. They need to be endlessly scrutinized, not covered up. Not argued for.” –
Very true, but hasn’t the federal government become so large and partisan that it is nearly impossible to hold someone to a standard. The only politicians “the people” have any true control over is local politicians and if you live in a big city, that is probably not even true. The only answer I’ve ever been able to come up with for this problem is to cut the government down to a size where every action can be witnesses and weighed by the voting public and those decisions result in directing the country. Leaders can not lead by popular polls but they can be judged on the results of their leadership.
“There’s no doubt that one’s political beliefs are somehow connected to the ego. It’s very easy to argue politics, and fun to fight over them.
In the end, however, treating politics as a sport helps nothing. And in a two-party system where less and less separates the parties, it’s just plain foolish.” – Good catch, the parties are not as different in results as the vocal fringe groups, that give the appearance of being the two parties main supporters, would lead you to believe. The goals of both parties are control and power. These goals are not supportive of “We the People”.