|
Jewish World Review Jan. 24, 2002 / 11 Shevat, 5762
Marc Berley
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- PARTISANSHIP is back, in a big way. Karl Rove's comment last week that "Americans trust the Republicans" to "do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military…thereby protecting America" allowed Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe to rejoin: "If the White House is politicizing the war, that's nothing short of despicable." By the weekend, McAuliffe was off and running down the slippery slope: "Enron is a metaphor for the Bush administration." Gone is the cozy post-9/11 bi-partisanship that set political disagreements aside for the good of the country, specifically its need to win a war to keep Americans safe at home. Gone is the harmonious spirit that had partisans from both side of the isle singing "America the Beautiful" on the steps of the threatened Capitol. Not that the singing was truly harmonious, but the symbolic end of partisanship was a glorious victory. Rather than flatly denounce partisanship upon its return, however, one does well to consider the forms it can take: good, bad, and rank. The word partisan comes from the Latin word pars, meaning "part." A partisan is "one who takes the part of or strongly supports one side or party." The strength of our political system is its dedication to free and open debate between and among parties who have different ideas regarding the best course for the country to take. Thanks to partisanship, the whole country can become greater than the sum of its parts. Trouble occurs, however, when a partisan becomes an "unreasoning, emotional adherent" (consult your "Websters"). But even this is not the worst kind of partisanship: human beings understandably become emotionally attached to their views, sometimes unreasonably. In a representative republic, such as the U.S., constituents want representatives who will fight for the course they consider best; crossing the line into pure emotionalism is merely an error, forgivable if occasional. Rove's mistake was to go against President Bush's wish to keep the war against terrorism out of political debate. In Rove's favor, however, is the fact that Americans should, come election time, think long and hard about which political party they want to manage the military, its wars, and their safety. Let's not forget all the Gore supporters who've said they're happy to have Bush as commander-in-chief. The war is a political issue, like it or not. Rove's error was simply to get too excited about it. The partisanship now emerging, a la McAuliffe, is of another kind, the worst kind: taking the part of one's side or party not with the welfare of the country in mind but rather the political interest of the party, namely gaining power. A wartime president with the highest approval rating since the beginning of approval ratings is hard to knock down. Thus DNC chairman McAuliffe's talking point for doing battle during wartime: GOP = Enron. So too: rampant innuendo = concrete facts. Three points: (1) Both Democrats and Republicans have taken Enron cash -- lots of them, and lots of cash. (2) The problem is Enron. It appears crimes were committed by Enron, enabled by accounting giant Arthur Anderson. Truly bi-partisan investigations must make those responsible pay. Righting a wrong, not partisanship, is the best course for the country. (3) Unfortunately, the best interest of the country is not in the interest of the political party currently seeking the power that centers in the White House.
Defining partisanship all the way down -- in wartime -- is an ugly way to make the whole country weaker than the sum of its parts, precisely when it needs to be
01/16/02: FDNY 'diversity' divides
|