A System Worth Fighting For
More from this column:
- Curb Your Enthusiasm: Bureaucracy Required For True Democracy
- Writing on the Wall for Obamacare Bill
- True Value of College Experience
- Look Back to Move Forward
- In Peace Prize Aftermath, Obama's Golden Opportunity
- Mark Your Calendars, Uphold Constitution
- Obama’s Ambiguous Campaign Persona Doesn’t Suit Presidency
- Double Standard in Presidential Politics
- GU Student Apathy
- A System Worth Fighting For
Conventional wisdom can be a dangerous force. For the last 80 years, our fickle national consensus has held that the government alone is the solution to an ailing economy and a downtrodden environment. (This consensus has been built by the government itself.) The influence of conventional wisdom with regards to ethnic diversity has brought to college campuses across the country the same kinds of inept and futile programs seen here at Georgetown. And who could forget conventional wisdom’s peculiar take on the U.S. Constitution — activist judges have branded it a “living document,” and thus not really a constitution at all.
President Obama, as brilliant with empty rhetoric as any politician since Bill Clinton, seized one tenet of political conventional wisdom and rode it all the way to the White House. The idea goes something like this: Our politicians are too divided and too partisan to get anything done; we need to move beyond our political divisions to get anywhere. Accordingly, Obama has taken up the chimerical, undyingly attractive mantle of “unity” and “post-partisanship.” He has confidently declared throughout his campaign and young presidency that he plans to end “partisan bickering.”
Despite what conventional wisdom and Obama say, partisanship is a tradition as old as the Republic itself. It permeates the annals of all Western politics. Edmund Burke, the British Whig and timeless political theorist, understood this as early as 1770 when he said, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” He wasn’t talking about war; he was talking about Parliament.
There is certainly a time for cooperation and it is true that squabbling over petty matters undermines the authority of the legislature itself (see, for example, the GUSA Senate). Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is never productive, and compromise must be given a fair chance. Obama should be applauded for his efforts in this regard.
But this is the man who declared that his presidency would be marked with the recession of the oceans and the healing of the planet — it is difficult to imagine that simple efficiency is all our president has in mind. His inaugural address made clear that he has decided to sharply depart from what he considers an all-too-partisan past.
What Americans and the mainstream media define as partisanship today would seem downright cooperative and polite to the politicians and parties of America’s past. We have come a long way since Sen. Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Upon casting one of the most decisive votes in American history (in support of the Compromise of 1850), Sen. Sam Houston famously said, “I can forget that I am called a traitor.” He understood that his decision would not please everyone, and he was willing to accept that. Most important to Sen. Houston were his principles, not his reputation.
The challenges of political courage met by the statesmen of the past were not overcome in the comfort of company; the tough decisions were made alone, in conflict with one’s colleagues, and were so provocatively partisan that others would claim treason. The greatest achievements of American government have come as the result of hard-fought political brawls, lonely conviction and hard feelings. In America, the ideal leader is willing to fight and argue with the firm belief that the best man will win and the American people will have the final judgment. Better he be true than merely cooperative.
Obama’s light, feel-good rhetoric will encounter difficulty and spawn tension in this kind of environment — and it should. Ultimately, collaboration must never substitute for creative disagreement and sincere debate. Honest men will commonly disagree on the most important of issues; to pretend that such genuine diversity of philosophy and approach can be overcome with childish bromides about “unity” is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous. More often than not, the veneer of “post-partisanship” has served as code for the parliamentary tricks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), which stifle debate and silence opposition.
Can Obama move America past partisanship? It’s a specious question: Without partisanship, this wouldn’t be America. The genius of the Constitution is its guarantee to prevent the very thing Obama advocates, and to preserve a competitive system of ambition set against ambition and interest set against interest.
In so doing, the Constitution creates a natural laboratory for policy development and ensures that collusion among various branches of government — the classical condition of tyranny — is averted. As James Madison said of the threat of political factions and partisanship: They can be extinguished, but only by prescribing that which is much worse than the disease itself. Politicians will disagree, interests will collide, and at the end of the day it’s an honest fight, not a naïve plea for “unity,” that best serves the interests of the American people.
Jeffrey Long is a sophomore in the College. He can be reached at long@thehoya.com. Conscience of a Conservative appears every other Tuesday.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
Feb 03 2009 at 3:11 p.m.
Excuse me for asking, but I thought the "conventional wisdom" of at least the last few decades has been, "the free market will take care of any issue in all places and at all times."
Now that the unrestrained greed at the heart of unregulated capitalism has attained an acutely sharp stench, people are thinking about tweaking or even overhauling the system altogether. Government's going to play a huge role, precisely because all of those free market conservatives on Wall Street have come to DC begging for an extra hit of that sweet, sweet cash when the free markets turned on them.
Reagan said that government was the problem, and he gutted out a lot of important programs (while ballooning the size of the Armed Forces .. typical Republican and Weak-Democratic fare). Reagan, Daddy Bush, Clinton (to a degree, I'll admit it), Bush Jr.. all of them decreased government oversight of the markets. Et voila.
By the way, what on earth are you talking about with regards to "ethnic diversity" and "inept and futile programs"? If you're going to bring something like that up, you better have a pretty darn well-thought-out argument with which to follow through.
Instead, I'm left wondering whether your head is stuck in the clouds or your feet are on thin ice.
Feb 03 2009 at 3:31 p.m.
This is just a transparent attempt to justify Republican obstructionism, and the column would have been precisely the opposite if McCain had won: "Isn't it time that the Democrats, who nominated Obama on the platform of post-partisanship, stick to that desire and work with Republicans?"
Also, thanks for the sexism here: "In America, the ideal leader is willing to fight and argue with the firm belief that the best man will win and the American people will have the final judgment. Better he be true than merely cooperative." I didn't know that our "ideal leader" would also necessarily be the "best man." I mean, at least you're explicit about your patriarchal views.
Feb 03 2009 at 3:55 p.m.
SFS 08 you miss the forest for the trees. Though there have been talking points one way or another, the size of governmetn has continued to grow and the regulation of the economy continued to increased, despite bleeps on the trends.
and this article is sexist
Feb 03 2009 at 7:23 p.m.
COL 11: I can see the forest clearly, and it's on fire.
I don't know where you're getting your news, but I think it's pretty clear that a major cause of this economic crisis came from government turning a blind eye to Wall Street's reckless disregard for human life, in return for some hefty campaign contributions.
Those aren't talking points, those are actions. Bush & Co. did an especially good job of de-regulating the markets, and they can rightfully hang this mess around their necks.
I agree, as I said above, that they spent a ton of money on Defense and grew government in terms of Homeland Security, etc. But, even in doing so, they turned to private contractors to do a lot of the work.
Our government has been privatizing the hell out of everything from shooting innocent people abroad to putting advertising TVs in our public schools' restrooms. That's what the creeping free market conventional wisdom has done to our country.
Not that it's wise, but it's the conventional wisdom.
Feb 03 2009 at 11:13 p.m.
lol somebody's in the contemporary american conservatism class
Feb 06 2009 at 12:26 p.m.
I believe a number of the above comments may be missing the forest for the trees. While I generally agree with SFS 08 that Mr. Long's characterization of expanding government is problematic given trends for deregulation of certain industries and the irresponsible privatization of others (military functions, for one), Mr. Long's position is not indefensible. Our most recent President was often touted by supporters as a champion of small government and reviled by his enemies for being the same- a veritable incarnation of Reagan, some believed. In reality, this champion of small government vastly augmented government spending, the budgetary deficit, and the national debt, simultaneously expanding the bureaucracy (read: DHS) more than any of his predecessors over the past few decades.
Regardless of the position one takes on the issue of government size and function, this question is not the foremost concern of Mr. Long's well-written piece. What is really asserted here is the tendency of President Obama to utilize the rhetoric of "post-partisanship" for political gain. Our current president is a very astute man who is keenly aware of his place in history (at least in the short term). He knows all too well that many moderate Americans viewed the past eight years- indeed the past sixteen years- as fraught with unnecessary bickering inspired by personal and partisan interests, rather than national ones. President Obama knows that he can capitalize on these negative perceptions of division to cast himself as a statesman who transcends partisanship for the national good.
While I am generally willing to give Mr. Obama his opportunity to govern and have been impressed with his cabinet appointments, Mr. Long's point is valid: parties have defined our political system since its inception and there is no need to treat them as a danger in and of themselves. When Founders such as Madison and Jay sought to preserve our nascent system from the dangers of "Faction," it was not groups of men advocating a particular ideology that they feared, it was rather cabals of primarily self-interested public office-holders exploiting institutions for private gain and cementing reinforcing cleavages in the electorate through their machinations and quarrels. This is an evil that every history-conscious American should be able to identify, regardless of their political persuasion or whether they agree with Mr. Long or not.
Finally, I must submit that attempting to discredit a well-argued article by alleging that it is "sexist" is a base and asinine tactic that, in my estimation, should be beneath the intellectual dignity of Georgetown students. The gender biases- real or imaginary- of Mr. Long's work have absolutely no bearing on the value of his argument, which concerns rhetoric and political theory. Moreover, the use of the term "man" instead of "individual" or some other gender-neutral term may be presently unfashionable, but is widely recognized as non-discriminatory. "Man" in this context may refer simply to a member of "mankind," which incorporates all human beings. This is simply a linguistic reality and should not be taken as proof of sexism on the part of the writer. One must look elsewhere for that, if it is to be found.
Whether you agree with the article or not, it is based in a strong understanding of the Founders' political ideals and should provide an origin for respectful and lively debate, rather than incriminations of political incorrectness.
Feb 06 2009 at 10:36 p.m.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Hi, I don't think we've met, Mr. Long.
What exactly is "conventional wisdom"? What does that even mean? You claim "conventional wisdom is a dangerous thing," yet your entire "argument," if it may be referred to as that, uses a normative interpretation of American political history, or perhaps what you might recognize as the "conventional wisdom" of that time, as evidence against listening to the conventional wisdom of today, thus making your article moronic.
Furthermore, your argument about the Constitution is simply wrong. You claim, "The genius of the Constitution is its guarantee to prevent the very thing Obama advocates," or "post-partisanship". Yet, the founders were against the idea of "parties" or "factions" in any sense of the word. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect, Mr. Peterson. The idea of civic republicanism and the virtue of the members of the republic that the founders cherished valued the man who was not bound to any sort of economic interest, and therefore was able to consider the good of the whole. Political parties would bound men to particular interests and the benefits of particular constituents, negating their intention.
Bear in mind that I'm not making a normative argument supporting this thought, I'm simply pointing out that your claim of partisanship being present throughout the history of America is wrong, and so your argument for past "conventional wisdom" as somehow being normatively better than the present "conventional wisdom," though fundamentally flawed because it is supported by what it argues against, is inaccurate anyway, because you do not even have your American history correct.
I could go on... but quite frankly an article so poorly thought out does not merit spending the time to refute it... Please try harder next time. Thanks.
Feb 07 2009 at 6:06 p.m.
Reality,
I'm not entirely certain of the identity of this "Mr. Madison," whom you've accosted with great rudeness. That quandary notwithstanding, I would first ask you to describe what a non-normative interpretation of US history would look like. The issue of normative neutrality in history and social science is a difficult one and I would encourage you to read Max Weber, Leo Strauss, and Charles Taylor on the subject before you suggest (via non-sentences, I might add) the inappropriateness of normative judgments in any work, let alone in an opinion column.
You are entirely correct that many of the Founders idealistically desired to create a system in which men would not be bound to economic interests by means of faction, but you do seem to be overlooking the difference between an economically-interested faction and an association based on defense of common principles. Concerning the thoughts of James Madison specifically, in Federalist No. 10 he defines "faction" as "a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Does this definition encompass contemporary political parties? If those parties are understood primarily as expressions of economic interests, then yes; if the parties are primarily expressions of disinterested ideologies concerning the best conduct of national policy, then no. Madison himself was far too brilliant to think that like-minded men would not cooperate in the pursuit of a common vision of the good. Indeed, his publication of the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay proves that much. The battle lines of American politics were already drawn before the ratification of the constitution, and Madison urges his audience at the end of Federalist No. 10 to have "zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists," which amounts to a clear partisan reference, if not a factional one. I am tempted to continue discussing Madison's very clear "normative" judgments of a broad range of topics in the same paper, or his discussion of the need for balance between representatives' understanding of local needs and of national ones, but instead I will simply encourage you to read the text itself.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
Finally, I am at a loss to comprehend your assertion that Mr. Long's "claim of partisanship being present throughout the history of America is wrong." For better or worse, parties have existed officially in the form of associational interest groups since the bitter presidential election of 1824 brought an end to the rather short "Era of Good Feelings." Furthermore, prior to this "Era," which essentially was simply Monroe's two presidential terms, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were locked in intense partisan struggle over a wide variety of issues, with staunchly Federalist New England even threatening secession over Jefferson's trade policy and the ultimately ensuing War of 1812. With the exception of George Washington, no US president has been independent of the two major lineages of partisan ideology dating back to the Constitutional ratification debates. Even Washington had Federalist sympathies and most of his prominent appointees (with exceptions, of course- Jefferson, for instance) were of that ideological proclivity.
Like it or not, partisanship has defined American politics since the 1780s. The question is not how to transcend ideological differences and achieve harmony- in too many societies around the world, "harmony" is simply euphemistic for "tyranny"- but rather how to best manage the issue of self-interest in politics in order to promote virtuous representatives who will put national interests before individual, associational, or local ones.
Feb 07 2009 at 7:49 p.m.
Mr. Peterson,
Thank you for the suggestion, but I have already read Max Weber. You're absolutely correct, the issue of normative neutrality in any work is an extremely sticky one. That is why I'm suggesting that Mr. Long not use as evidence normative views of history to undermine the normative views of today. It's challenging one subjective view with another, and does not lead us to any worthwhile conclusions. The closest thing he came to "opinion" in this entire article (besides claiming American history is great compared to today) was one measly paragraph. I cannot take someone railing on about one normative view over another, unless they provide some sort of evidence. This could be in the form of an opinion, who knows?
Moving on, you're right that Madison wished to permit factions, I never said that he did not. However, that does not mean, as he notes in (oh, I don't know?) the very first sentence of Federalist No. 10 that in principle he was against their formation in any way. He claimed "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished." Sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement to me, no? Sure, he knew they would form, but that in no way means that he supported them.
Again, I must admit you are right, let's extend the definition of faction to that of Madison's. It is certainly more accurate. What did George Washington have to say about factions and parties? Giving his farewell address, he claimed that parties "...serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party … to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by the common counsels and modified by mutual interests." Another ringing endorsement. So I'm pretty sure you're wrong, they were also against an association based on the defense of common principles. Also, I'm pretty sure that Madison's definition does encompass the parties of today. You say that his definition does not encompass them if they are "primarily expressions of disinterested ideologies concerning the best conduct of national policy." Unfortunately, it seems only a dullard would make such a claim.
As for your last claim, let us all keep in mind that American history goes back past 1780.
Also, I hope you'll forgive my non-sentences, I don't spend much time writing these. If you do, I'll forgive this grammatical ad hominem attack on my first post. Finally, I suggest you watch Billy Madison, and you will therein find the "Mr. Madison" I was referring to in my first paragraph.
Feb 08 2009 at 12:55 a.m.
In any case, does "I'm a uniter, not a divider" sound familiar to the conservatives peddling Jeff Long's argument? We all remember how bipartisan W was, and I'm pretty sure that was a large part of his platform. Perhaps that will fill Jeff in on how important presidential rhetoric is when it comes to presidential action.
Feb 08 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Reality,
Thanks for a constructive and interesting debate. I think we will probably continue to disagree on our interpretation of Madison's feelings towards parties, but I will not deny (nor have I) that most of the Founders would probably be fairly disappointed in the condition of our current party system and many of our public office holders. It is certainly true that "only a dullard" would seriously claim that today's parties are "primarily expressions of disinterested ideologies concerning the best conduct of national policy;" the point I wished to illustrate was simply that if this is the *ideal* form of a party, then I don't believe it fits neatly into Madison's definition of "faction." Additionally, we've only discussed Madison's thoughts on the issue, and not those of other Founders, but I'm sure we both have other things we could be doing.
As for the Billy Madison quote, it was not foremost in my mind, but now that you mention it, I remember the scene. Please do forgive the misunderstanding.