I’m not focused, here, on the actual bailouts, or any of the particular issues about which it is often said, “It’s not partisan”, but rather on the integrity of the claims, “It’s not partisan.”  There has been a seemingly increased intensity in cries for “bipartisan” actions and cooperation regarding America’s, and the world’s, most pressing issues, which is a perfectly reasonable and understandable appeal.  What I find less reasonable and understandable is; first, the expectation that such bipartisanship will occur at this juncture, and second, that when someone attempts to indicate blame for existing problems, many politicians start blaming the blamer, saying that pointing fingers and placing blame is counterproductive.  I do not agree and appeals for bipartisanship have led nowhere, produced nothing except the current tragic set of circumstances.  Logically, it seems that understanding what and who created the existing torrent of disastrous events and existing status quo would be integral to creating an antidote for the toxic effects of actions taken, and also in recognizing who might or might not be qualified and trustworthy enough to oversee implementation and execution of such a remedy for existing ills.  Additionally, knowing the views associated with particular representatives should have impact on future electability.

It seems current debates are based on primarily partisan viewpoints rather than “non-partisan” approaches.  Disagreements appear largely based on the Republican premise that helping the average citizen rather than, or in conjunction with, corporations and business interests is “nationalization” and “socialism”, which are Republican negative propaganda words that Republicans attach to nearly all proposed legislation intended to improve living standards of the average American citizen, and especially if it helps people living below average American living standards.  Simultaneously, most of those same Republicans have no qualms about providing taxpayer monies to corporations that are failing due to their own greedy, dishonest procedures and inept management.

Can an issue be non-partisan?  I think it can be, but saying that finding a political solution to an issue is “not partisan” is pointless because the solution to the problem created by the “not partisan” issue is necessarily partisan by virtue of the fact that partisan values, which express differing goals, inevitably must enter into any discussion regarding what action should be taken.  In that respect, I think it is more counterproductive to attempt to silence those who expose the perpetrators of actions and policies that created the existing problems, especially when those perpetrators continually obstruct efforts to reverse some of the damage of their own past policy agendas by adhering to and promoting those same agendas and refusing to try anything different purely on ideological (partisan) grounds.  How else, aside from exposing past failures and their causes, can those who genuinely seek bipartisan efforts garner support for their policies?

Recognition by many better-informed, more intelligent, more ethical right-wing citizens that the Bush/Cheney White House has been an American disaster, and that a McCain/Palin administration would have been, in all likelihood, either a continuation of that disastrous administration, or an intensification of it, contributed to the required impetus to put in place an administration that has, at least, a different “partisan” view that will hopefully turn America in a better direction than she has traveled during the past 8 years (or 30 years?).  Such recognition does not occur by ignoring blame, by pretending there are not some who are directly more responsible for the issues at hand, nor does such bipartisan support occur by ignoring blame.

One issue that meets the definition of bipartisan or non-partisan is the need for investigations into the illicit actions of the Bush/Cheney administration.  A little over two thirds of Americans want an investigation of the crimes of the Bush/Cheney White House and THAT “coalition of the willing” is the base of a clear mandate if ever there has been one.  Yet, even this issue has its partisan components; there are clear divisions across party lines (it’s partisan) as to what sort of investigation should be implemented and whether there should be any actual prosecution of crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney administration.  A non-partisan perspective would be to investigate and prosecute when crimes are committed regardless of who committed them.  Interestingly, one area where Americans have seen the greatest congressional bipartisanship lies within this issue; that bipartisanship can be seen in the petrified unison of Congress in refusing to take action of the sort mandated by the Constitution and public opinion.  Yes, there has been much bipartisanship in that area; much bipartisanship in commission of, and ignoring, the Bush/Cheney crimes.  (Is that what is meant by “post-partisanship?)  And while it appears some investigations may be initiated, there is no real bipartisan support for them.

Another example of an issue that might meet non-partisan criteria is the issue of universal healthcare.  Most Americans agree that profit margin should not be placed above an individual’s health, especially in a nation as affluent as America, and that universal healthcare would have a beneficial overall societal effect, impacting a variety of issues.  However, as is true with the Bush/Cheney investigation issue, there are clear divisions among Americans as to how such a policy should be implemented and those divisions are, once again, distinguished primarily along partisan lines; Republicans, first and foremost, represent corporate, Big Pharma, insurance and business interests in the matter of healthcare, placing profit margin above and beyond the best interests of most Americans. In promoting that “partisan” value, Republicans bring out the abovementioned arsenal of propaganda code words and phrases; nationalization and socialism and comparisons of Obama to Stalin.

Unless we live in a dictatorship or a monarchy or a theocracy, rather than a partisan democracy, such as currently exists in America, everything political is “partisan”.  That is a necessary component of a democracy based on political Parties.  Political Parties exist solely to represent shared views held by the Party’s adherents.  Consider the current problem of the Obama administration’s attempts to “vet” appointees (see Saturn Smith’s blog), and how this is preventing forward movement; the problem is that the slightest little bit of “controversy” an appointee might present will be exploited immediately by… you guessed it… partisan attacks from Republicans in efforts to delay those appointments, thereby creating further bipartisan, petrified unison in Congress.  Speaking of petrified unison in congress, what do the terms “post-partisan” and “post-partisanship” mean, exactly?  Is use of those terms a diplomatic admission that there is now only one Party?

To say, “It’s not partisan” is to create confusion, apprehension and to diminish the importance of recognition of the perpetrators and their policies that created the issues in the first place. The story, The Emperor’s New Clothes, which has been repeatedly referenced regarding treatment of the Bush/Cheney administration’s actions by the mainstream media and Congress, also seems appropriate here; call it like you see it, call it like it is: there is a partisan aspect to the problems currently facing America. 

I say, “It IS partisan.”  To pretend otherwise obfuscates the truth and obstructs progress.  Catering to those who created the current fiasco merely prolongs the current policy stagnation that has paralyzed our national discourse, as well as progress toward meaningful solutions for long-term problems that have been ignored for too long while profiteers have transferred government funds from taxpayers to their own bank accounts; funds that could have been so much better invested in America.  Full exposure of their failures, their wrongdoing, their total dishonesty in policy presentation is key to understanding the problems they created, and which must now be solved, as well as how to avoid more such problems in the future.

Corporatists vs. Humanists

Partisanship has always been part of America.  Since the beginning of “The Great Experiment”, the struggle between conservatives and progressives has seethed.  In what may arguably be an overly simplistic presentation, Conservatives were fundamentally those who never really wanted to secede from England.  Progressives fundamentally were individuals steeped in Humanist philosophical perspectives, which recognized the oppressive and tyrannical nature of monarchical and theocratic governance, which stifled human progress, and sought to break away from such.  Inspiration for the conservative perspective in that era, just as it is today, was based largely in greed and possession of wealth, as many of those conservatives were corporatists or had ties to corporate interests and had much more to lose by seceding from England.

The struggle between corporatists and progressives never died, but has continued ever since America’s birth and corporatists have, unfortunately, won most of the recent battles in America and have taken command of the high ground; American government.  Humanists must take back that high ground and the only way to accomplish that is to vote out of office those officials who do not represent Humanist perspectives, which includes some Democrats, as well as Republicans.

Religion

 Any discussion of differing values in American society demands mention of religion.  Religion accounts for many societal divisions; differences between the religious and irreligious and differences between different religious brands.  Divisions created by religious belief are many, they are multifaceted, and somewhat self-evident, and would take too much time and space here to discuss, so I will not, but they are important enough that their mention is warranted.  There is a segment of the American citizenry that aligns its partisanship primarily according to religious beliefs.

It IS Partisan; Not Post-Partisan

Returning now to the concept of a “post-partisan ideology” and “post-partisanship”, it seems to me that this is a telling centrist talking point.  Perhaps the members of congress and other branches of the government have become “post-partisan”, but the citizenry of the United States has not.  In fact, that citizenry may be more partisan, now, than at any other time in American history since the debates over secession from the Crown.

So, despite the possible and likely benefits of a post-partisan ideology, such an ideology is not the current reality.  Post-partisan government may be a worthy goal.  However, politicians who use the term “post-partisan” at this time in relation to dealing with current realities seem suspect to me since I do not see that Americans are in a post-partisan era, Americans are not “post-partisan” and the term seems to have no value in everyday reality or in the debates surrounding the current problems America faces.  It reveals a unique sort of deceit and negation of the American public in current politics; a denial of the reality of existing partisan values, a reluctance to acknowledge what partisan values created the current issues, and simultaneously, a seemingly masked admission by politicians of a possible reality that we have entered into a new era of one-party government – a complicit bipartisan disregard in Congress of the conflicting views of American citizenry.

To recognize those incongruous views, one need only consider recent displays of ill will towards the Obama administration by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who speaks for literally millions of his loyal listeners across America when he unequivocally states that he wants Obama’s policies to fail.  Limbaugh’s is a purely partisan view, and it reflects the dissonance inherent in the reality of American society today.  There will always be divisions among people in how they view the world, how they perceive right and wrong, what they see as solutions to problems, and even in what they perceive as being a problem, and as long as that is true, there will always be political factions that come together to advocate their views.  In that sense, it will always be “partisan”. 

Advocating a post-partisan ideology serves better if kept in a realistic context.  A democracy without political parties might become a reality one day, and it seems logically like a better democracy and one I’d like to see, but that is not the system from which we must find solutions for our current problems.  America will be better served if its citizenry and congressional representatives recognize that the Emperor is not wearing clothes that are made of a post-partisanship that is “invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality”, as was claimed about the fabric of the clothes in the story.  He is naked; there is no post-partisan ideology at work at this time.  Real solutions to real problems require working from a position of reality.  In reality it is a particular partisan value system that created the current toxic circumstances.  Stop blaming the blamers and join them in exposing and broadcasting that reality, help them drive it into the consciousness of the American public.  The reality is, “It IS partisan.”  Deal with it.