Partisanship - PoetPatriot.com

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.

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!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 banded together to achieve some harmful or 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 liberty.