Partisanship Is Not A Four Letter Word
Partisanship has been made out to be a four-letter word in the world of U.S. politics. Commentator after commentator, and uninformed spectator after uninformed spectator, rails against the “gridlock” created by the “hyper-partisanship” in Washington, D.C. One time House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), blamed the American voter for the gridlock. Hoyer said that the problems stem from voters selecting representatives with “hard positions.” With the election of Donald Trump, the word has taken on even more nefarious meanings. People are using “partisan” as code for bigot, racist, and other nonsense. Whining about partisanship is something the weak-minded and ill-informed do because partisanship is one of those components of politics that the Founding Fathers counted on when forming this government.
In Federalist Paper #10, which is believed to have been written by James Madison, Publius (the pen-name used by the writers) discussed the choice between having factions (partisans) and not. Madison wrote, “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”
LGBTQ rights, equal pay legislation, rent control, infrastructure, tax policy — these are all examples of “factions,” of partisan interests. Shall we bar such affiliations?
On the origins of factions, Madison wisely states, “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”
In other words, Madison is saying that partisanship is natural and useful to man. Each faction seeks representation to support its position. And what most fail to realize is that they themselves need factions. Moreover, they support them. LGBTQ rights, equal pay legislation, rent control, infrastructure, tax policy — these are all examples of “factions,” of partisan interests. Shall we bar such affiliations? Should we say that one may not advocate for a position because we run the risk of alienating some other interest? After all, that is what a partisan truly is: the person who pursues one interest to the detriment of another, opposing interest.
Factions cannot be eliminated because that would require the elimination of liberty, which is “worse than the disease” of factions. It is an impossibility to say that we can secure greater freedom by removing freedom. Instead, what can be done is the regulation of the effects of factions.
Madison’s arguments, which were so adequately displayed two hundred years ago, remain just as relevant today. Folks like Bernie Sanders claim that large corporations have too much power, among other things, and their response is to remove the freedom of the corporations to seek their own interests. Yet, such an outcome would be more crippling than the current sickness. Who gets to decide which interests are worth permitting? I suppose when the person in charge is in alignment with your ideals, you don’t much mind. What happens, however, when the opposing party, or a third party, takes control? What argument will you the have to oppose them? The answer: nothing. You will have nothing.
We need factions, partisanship, to save what little freedom remains.
Madison’s response, on the contrary, was the creation of even more factions, filtered through representatives. He wrote, “[as] you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”
For instance, if the majority of voters in a particular state desire some end that could be disadvantageous to the remainder, the singular state is hindered in its goals by the representatives of the other states. Even if the single state is more populous, it remains subject to the combined interest of the remaining states. If, however, there was direct democracy, the will of the most populous faction would triumph over the will of the rest. In other words, the greater number of factions, as created by the representative republican form of government, is a guard against a single, populous faction.
Partisanship, which is derided by so many as being a hindrance to the progression of our Congress, is, in fact, the greatest guard against the subtle encroachment on individual rights, and ought to be respected as such. We need factions, partisanship, to save what little freedom remains.
