I once was asked "What is a person that is anti-partisan?
That question at face value can be taken two ways. I will address the
person who refuses to participate in any party. I will then address the
nonsense that parties should be non-partisan in their actions.
1. A person who is anti-partisan is one who will have no
impact upon the policies of the parties that run this country.
By this definition although they may 'make a statement' and may to
small degrees effect the greater dialog will have no actual bearing
upon the direction of this country.
There are many reasons one may choose for not participating in a Major Party but
by doing so they lock themselves out of the policy making. Those who
refuse to participate in any party do not understand the need of co-operation
for the advancement of agreed upon values and issues. Third parties
can only succeed in 'Making a Statement' maybe to the effect of small changes to
the dialog of the two major parties. Participation in smaller
parties is activism predestined to failure.
2. A person who wishes
anti-partisanship does not understand the political system.
The democrats accuse the Republicans of partisanship whenever the
Republicans do not agree with the Democrats. The reason the
two parties exist is because of disagreements (partisanship).
To stand fast on one's principals is partisanship. Non-partisanship
is either indecisiveness or when the values of two or more parties
meet to allow a compromise.
The liberals have turned the term 'Partisan' into
a dirty word; using it to demonize the Republicans to attempt to
sway public opinion away from issues where the Republicans gain
success. The Democratic party is partisan when they accuse the
Republicans of partisanship. Partisanship is the essence of
the two party system. Partisanship defines the
parties. Partisanship is Politics.
© copyright 2003 Roger W Hancock, PoetPatriot.com
The following is taken from an email reply to Mark Pierce.
Partisanship - Human Nature
Politics will exist in one form or
another whether it be partisanship or other system. Compromise would exist in
any form since you and I, I am sure, would not agree on everything. Where we do
agree compromise would not be necessary. Where we disagree one would either
have to win out over the other or we compromise. The one who would have lost
wins in a compromise as his agenda is advanced although not as great as he would
like. People of similar agenda's would form their own organizations to advance
their agendas, just as is being done today.
It is human nature to gather with those we know and hold common values. Remember
the clicks in school? ... human nature! Within parties partisanship exists.
Within many churches partisanship exists (Although should not). Within
corporations partisanship exists between those of differing opinion as to the
direction of the corporation. Partisanship is human nature and as such cannot be
avoided. Compromise is actually anti-partisanship. One who stands on principle
alone without compromise, compromises his ability to advance his
agendas. Civilization does not exist without partisanship. Condemned if we do,
condemned if we do not!
© copyright December 29, 2006
Roger W Hancock www.PoetPatriot.com
The following is taken from a second email reply to Mark Pierce.
Partisanship - Conspiracy?
Partisanship itself is not
a conspiracy. Conspiracies do exist within the political partisanships. What
is a conspiracy? Definition: a group of conspirators
to achieve some
illegal purpose. Many of the "conspiracies" within politics are simply an
advancement of an agenda, not necessarily a conspiracy. Watergate was a
conspiracy. Clinton's attempt to hide his perjury was a conspiracy. But
those were short term blatant illegal acts. A long term conspiracy would be
the infiltration of the Democratic Party of Socialists and Communists to
influence and infiltrate the American government. Much success has been
achieved by the "conspiracies" of the socialists and commies. It is ironic
that much of the tactics used would have been squashed in a Communist
country: promotion of demonstrations in hopes of disruption; promotion of
the acceptance of homosexuality, pornography and promiscuity to undermine
the American family; and the placement of Judges that would rule against the
country's base of philosophy; in our case the U. S. Constitution.
Compromise for the sake of bi-partisanship is self defeating. Compromise for
compromise sake is a poor strategy. Compromise should only be used to
advance ones agenda without creating a climate that would endanger that
agenda in the future. Much compromise today is short sighted, attempting to
look good to the public to gain votes for the next election. The political
arena has been pulled to the left with the Democrat Party promoting agendas
that 40-50 years ago were simply laughed at, by both parties. The Republican
Party in attempts to appear less partisan have been pulled to the left,
lending some credence to the publics view of "little difference between the
parties," although vast differences still exist.
The advancement of an agenda, however perverted, is not necessarily a
conspiracy except that you consider the covert plan to be harmful to
society's values, not illegal but harmful, to established values. "Right
wing conspiracy", "Left wing conspiracy" are simply tags to hide the real
danger to our society and the American way of life. It is the pulling to the
left that has restricted property rights, failed to maintain the definition
of marriage, and restrict the freedom of religion, that has harmed society,
lending success to the long term of conspiracies within the Democratic
Party. It is the undermining of traditional and religious values that have
been revered since John Hancock availed his wealth in the conspiracy for
© copyright December 30, 2006 Roger W Hancock
Enjoyed the Poems?
Or other content
a T I P
not the same
as cow tipping.