It certainly is. Which brings up another aspect of discipleship we could consider.

Let's call it the difference between favourable discipleship and unfavourable discipleship. For instance which is preferrable - the discipleship of partisan junkies of a political leader with charm who says and does what it takes to win the election not based upon any particular principles other than to win - or - the discipleship of a nation who elects a true leader who has only the best of intentions and the capability of carrying out those intentions for that nation as a whole being above partisan issues.

More specifically would it not be better for instance to stand united behind the leaders of your country irregardless of your political views than to carry partisanship into the governing of the country? After all it is election time where differences should be made known and applied by the electorate, not at any other time when the country needs to be running smoothly in unity.

I tend to think partisan politics, in its extremes, breeds poor government since the true leaders could very well be passed by because of blinded discipleship. That situation continues to grow until the country becomes severely disfunctional or dies altogether because rather than running the country according to its best interest its leaders are more concerned about posturing for the next election having concerns more for being elected or elected again.

This seems to be happening quite vividly in US politics in increasing measure especially with the deep polarized partisan divisions in the country with its opposing extremes. It is certainly less than in middle east countries but significantly more than here in Canada (which isn't much different in divisive nature just intensity). Proper political discipleship breeds strong and proper national leadership.

US media like Rush and the traditional liberal media do not help the cause to look for true leadership but instead encourage greater divisiveness within the country. Rush is a hoot though.

"ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the great lies about American politics is that Democrats genuinely subscribe to a set of core convictions that make Democrats different from Republicans. And the same thing, of course, applies to the other party. It's not true. I happen to define myself as a conservative.

Well, what do conservatives say they stand for? Well, conservatives say they stand for balanced budgets. Small government. The so called traditional values.

Well, when you look back over the past 30 or so years, since the rise of Ronald Reagan, which we, in many respects, has been a conservative era in American politics, well, did we get small government?

Do we get balanced budgets? Do we get serious as opposed to simply rhetorical attention to traditional social values? The answer's no. Because all of that really has simply been part of a package of tactics that Republicans have employed to get elected and to - and then to stay in office.

BILL MOYERS: And, yet, you say that the prime example of political dysfunction today is the Democratic Party in relation to Iraq.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, "Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War."

And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war. " excerpt from Bill Moyer's Journal Aug 15th, 2008 www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html


I just watched this show (needing a break from my weird Olympic thing) and I know many .. ok, Ray, will take umbridge with the sheer idea of Bill Moyers.. but it was such a great model of what political discussions can be.. and I think this quote fits in so well about the inaccurate divisiveness that has kept us, 'us' as in the American people, from looking at the 'domestic dysfuntion' that is fueling much of what is going on. A house divided and all...

I linked the transcript page.. hoping to share..

Well, DCinC, I appreciate you letting us move this topic to the Town Meeting because, in fact, without partisanship there is no Town Meeting. (Noting the first official response to your thread starter is a undisguised exercise in partisan politics.)

Like the saying that affirms that it's difference of opinion that makes for a horse race, so difference of opinion makes for politics as a sidebar to governance. Partisanship is how those differences are articulated.

Of course, this thread is going to delve into the nature of political parties, so perhaps it might be useful to have some easy working definition. For the purposes of this thread I'd like to think that "partisanship" simply refers to how people express their politic differences. If I aver we need to spend more money on something and you counter that we don't, I'm being partisan and so are you. That's what makes a horse race.

So just to initiate a response, I'll propose that partisanship is NOT a bad thing, in an of itself. In fact, one might even consider it admirable if only from the notion it denotes a person with sufficient courage of their convictions to say or do something to advance those convictions. It signifies they actually have an opinion about something.

I grow weary of those who profess their wish that if only we could do away with political parties everything would sweetness and light. Bah! That has all the intellectual integrity of the obligatory wish for world peace from beauty pageant contestants. Just a bunch of that Sugar Rock Candy Mountain nonsense.

As soon as you get two or more people who discover a mutual sharing of belief in something or other, AND who can identify someone who wants to chosen to govern on behalf of the people as sharing that belief, AND as soon as those two or more decide to actively promote that governmentally inclined person's candidacy to office, then BINGO! you have formed a political party. Your "party" may not have an official name, but it's a political party nonetheless.

Political parties are simply groups of two or more people whose purpose is to promote for office representatives who espouse the shared opinions of the party members. Castigating the concept of political parties is just about as nonsensical as declaring that although John Doe's political philosophies are antithetical to your own, you plan to vote for him anyway. (puts on his best Jerry Seinfeld voice) "What's up with that?"

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance


I (obviously) thought that using a quote that reflects one person's understanding of flaws in the actions of both parties a delightful place to start.. and your use of 'undisguised' implies that there was an attempt to disguise.. and that makes no sense. Since the quote named both parties it's clearly not a partisan quote (using the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition)



Why 'of course'? If the idea that partisanship is the bane of good governement.. wouldn't the logical discussion be what is the opposite of partisanship? My hunch would be something close to cooperation and an undertanding of good government based on non-blind, non-prejudiced, and reasoned allegiance for the good of all...



But that is NOT the common use of the term... acting upon one's convictions makes one an activist.. acting upon the convictions of blind, unreasoning allegiance to a party platform.. makes one a partisan activist.

In fact I'd say that total party allegiance is a myth.. and that myth is quite dysfunctional. I say that based on the history of the parties as well as what is said/declared to be a part of the party platform verses what actions are taken.. (hence the quote by Andrew Bacevich)

Actually, what it implies is that it is undisguised. An "attempt" to disguise would be described at "poorly disguised." No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.


I never said it was the "bane of good government." It could be, but then I don't choose to define it as...


That's a description that folks, such as yourself, might use to describe those whose views don't mesh with their own. Naturally, I'd guess you see your own views as well reasoned and thoughtful, the very essence of partisanship.

I find your uses of 'discipleship' and 'partisanship' very interesting, DCInC. I feel the 'rightness' of your using discipleship to help define partisanship, although at first glance, they don't seem to be synonymous.



It's the secondary definition that applies to political philosophy, as I understand it. Which makes me wonder why our present Congress has been so namby-pamby with so many of its decisions.

America hired a Democratic Congress thinking it would be able to counter the Republican Legislative branch because it would practice discipleship, but it didn't. Nor did it practice partisanship. It practiced 'GettingWalkedAllOver-ship.'

quite right.. however, it is the title of the thread..



Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance..

is the Merriam-Webster Online Disctionary definition. Makes no never mind to me if you like it or not..

the whole personal attack thing, sort of old.. you should try broadening your skills...

This is a very good question because it goes to the core nature of political philosophy and how such philosophy is applied in government.

Suffice it to say that Democrats and Republicans in Congress cannot seem to agree upon a mutually satisfactory course of action on a number of those decisions to which you referred. One can toss the words "partisanship" or "gridlock" or whatever around but what it comes down to is each "side" in the discussion apparently has some deal-killer political positions which they feel they cannot abandon. And if BOTH sides are only willing to accept a deal that compromises one of the deal-killer positions of the other side, then no deal can take place and the debating goes on.

Often such political bickering takes place when both sides of the debate feel they have done all the compromising they can, that they've given as much ground as they can and they both are saying to themselves, "Not one inch further! Not one iota more until we get what WE want."

Now, one more concept needs to be introduced. I've used the phrases "political philosophy" and "political position" and I need to point out they are not one and the same thing. Your political philosophy is an outgrowth of your core beliefs. Political positions are those specific proposals or plans that grow out of the developed philosophies.

So if you can accept those concepts, then it is safe to say that the current headbutting in Congress is a result of the political positions espoused by the Democratic Party which are the outgrowth of the party's political philosophy which is a reflection of the core beliefs of those people who tend to be members of, or support the Democratic party, coming into conflict with the Republican Party's positions, philosophies and core beliefs.

Go ahead, reverse the party names in the above paragraph and it means the same thing. Somewhere along the line somebody's core beliefs are coming into conflict with someone else's core beliefs and until one side or the other or both are willing to internalize a change in position/philosophy then both sides are stuck in gridlock.

Now, if we can digest this bit without sinking into a quagmire of personal or corporate attack we may be able to move this conversation along.

While, theoretically, I agree with your post.. I don't think that 'core beliefs' are at the fulcrum.. in fact, I think that much of what Congress and the Executive Offices have been fighting for/about, overtly and behind-close-doors, is money and the power that is perceived to come with that. And I am not just talking about this Administration or just this Congress.

If we are going to put this within the frame work of discipleship, then what the 3 branches of our Government need to be following is found within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Interesting thought. Please expound.