Comments on: Comments on 20351

Post number 20351

MiguelCardoso — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 03:04:47 -0800

What's So Absurd About Partisanship? The Lying in Ponds* website is a clever attempt to measure partisanship in the daily columns of the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Although - or perhaps because - its methodology is simple and straightforward, its conclusions, though necessarily unsurprising, are quite interesting, often amusing and seem fairer than er, more partisan "media watch" thingies [Don't miss their 2002 Top Ten.]. But why is being openly partisan seen as such a terrible thing in America? Why is so much time and effort expended to hide it or deny it? Or, put another way, why is bipartisanship such a desirable thing, often presented as being somehow above politics? Is it American exceptionalism again?
*[Echoing what Dennis said in Monty Python And The Holy Grail: "Listen!Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!"]

By: donfactor

donfactor — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 03:36:11 -0800

It seems to me that both partisanship and bipartisanship hide the truth. I would like those with a partisan agenda to let me know up front that that's where they are coming from and similarly, if bipartisanship is the path then let the commentary come from different partisans or, in a straight news item, let them quote the opposing points of view. It's hidden partisanship that is the problem along with boring attempts to avoid having an opinion that somebody may not like.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:17:08 -0800

Bipartisanship "sounds" nice. But I (and I would assume most) didn't send my representatives to Washington to just lie down with the opposition. I believe my party (Democrats, in this case) stands for something - otherwise I wouldn't bother to vote in the first place. Ditto goes for the opposition. So if it's partisan to fight for what you stand for - I'm all for it. BUT, if partisanship is just being an ass over one tiny detail, then some bipartisanship is needed. Of course, "one tiny detail" is in the eye of the beholder.

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:24:34 -0800

Fantastic post, MiguelCardoso, much appreciated. Not only is it a wealth of information, but it's interesting to see both sides on an issue, even if you think you know where you stand. This is an oasis in a desert of eternally divided opinion. I promise to stop making horrific metaphors, if you promise to appreciate the kind of thought that goes in to making this kind of site. One thing though, from the site: "The views of pundits who are excessively partisan cannot be taken seriously" Does this mean that I can't worship Ann Coulter as the most hilarious pontificating partisan pundit?

By: allaboutgeorge

allaboutgeorge — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:51:53 -0800

If she makes you laugh, then by all means do.

By: taz

taz — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 04:59:26 -0800

Interesting. But aren't all the articles used to build the db from 2002? It is possible that some writers scoring high in (anti-republican) partisanship might score equally high the other way if the dems were in the White House; in other words, it's normal to analyze (and often criticize) the actions of whatever body is in power at the moment. I wonder how much, if any, the index would change if an equal number of articles from a given year from the Clinton admin. were also included? At any rate, mad kudos for the name alone!

By: majick

majick — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:00:06 -0800

"[W]hy is being openly partisan seen as such a terrible thing in America?" It's certainly not easy to speak for an entire nation so I will forgo offering any answer in that context. However, for me, partisanship is a sign of exactly those elements of politics and government that are undesirable: Representatives of the people instead acting as representatives of a party. I don't go to the polls to elect a party, I elect a representative. Any interest above and beyond that of that representative's constituency -- be it the party or some other generous campaign sponsor -- implies that my elected official is no longer acting in my and my community's interests. Perhaps this is a somewhat naive view of politics in general, but it's the way I and possibly a few other Americans think it ought to work.

By: acridrabbit

acridrabbit — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:10:41 -0800

I don't trust bipartisanship in politics and I, like owillis, prefer that politicians take a stand, be firm, say what they believe, and be honest about things. Then I can vote accordingly. But I do not want journalists to be openly partisan in news articles. Editorials are one thing - that's where the opinions and biases can come out in the open. But news articles should be impartial.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 07:03:23 -0800

In case anyone doubted Paul Krugman was way above all the other pundits in terms of partisanship, followed less than closely by Claudia Rosett, here's the Combined Partisanship Index to cement all certainties there might be. Cheers, Hama7; I'd hoped you'd like it. Lying in Ponds is the work of Ken Waight, a research metereologist living in Cary, North Carolina, married with "three awesome kids". The idea of this guy getting up early every morning to read and score the columns on the Internet, following his own admirable agenda for independence in newspaper pundits, is, for this baffled European at least, a prime, inspiring example of the true American spirit. What need over-financed "media watch" think-tanks after this?

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:11:58 -0800

What need over-financed "media watch" think-tanks after this? Exactly. This eloquently provides a glimmer of hope in a dizzying array of bickering. For clarification: In my comments above the "you" I mentioned should have been "one". Thanks again, MiguelCardoso.

By: riviera

riviera — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:40:39 -0800

When a politician appeals to 'bipartisanship', you know he's up to something. But there's a distinction between partisanship and dishonesty carried out for that purpose. The attention should less be upon people's self-acknowledged positions, but on the manner by which they're justified.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:50:37 -0800

I believe my party (Democrats, in this case) stands for something - otherwise I wouldn't bother to vote in the first place. They stand for greed and powermongering, just like the other party. Vote for individuals, not "parties."

By: spudworks

spudworks — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:55:44 -0800

It seems to me that in a party system, albeit one that's being whittled away at with open primaries, partisanship is to be expected. Frankly, I was growing concerned that there was too much bipartisanship over the last year and was glad to see some over the Homeland Security bill and the Iraq thing.

By: namespan

namespan — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:30:01 -0800

Very, very interesting stuff. Does this mean that I can trust the Washington Post more than the other newspapers? They've got a partisan index of 4 on the dems side (and it would seem somewhat logical to have more criticism of the party in power, which is how their current index gets that way)...... majick: You said I don't go to the polls to elect a party, I elect a representative. That may be true for you, and it is for me, but here in Utah and a few other places I've lived, it's amazing how often people simply vote the party line. My theory is that it's simply laziness or conservation of focus... but I don't really understand it yet.

By: raysmj

raysmj — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:34:14 -0800

MiguelCardoso: Krugman's columns are pointedly partisan, though. He doesn't pussyfoot around, or attempt to act non-partisan just for show, or take a contrary viewpoint just to be provocative (even when, say, arguing that child labor in Third World countries is not evil - he seems to mean it). He's very straightforward, and seemingly driven - both admirable traits for an op-ed columnist, and also rare.

By: tranceformer

tranceformer — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:38:02 -0800

When a politician appeals to 'bipartisanship', you know he's up to something. Exactly right - an appeal to bi-partisanship or accusation of partisanship is just an easy way to discredit your opponents' arguments. That said, splitting intellectual issues into only two sides is an easy way to impoverish the discussion. I think people just like being in groups when they argue with each other.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:47:38 -0800

Vote for individuals, not "parties." So I can get "president" Bush? No thanks.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:11:38 -0800

it seems like nowadays once a cabinet is chosen, the office of president is largely ceremonial.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:05:54 -0800

So I can get "president" Bush? No thanks. You wouldn't have him if the Democrats weren't cowards.

By: owillis

owillis — Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:23:32 -0800

I wouldn't have him if the Naderites lived in the real world.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:02:10 -0800

Mighty small conceptualization of the "real world" where it only provides us with 2 men to choose from to run our country out of 300+ million, inherently, inevitably, with no possibility of change...