"Blind partisanship" is what one side of an issue always, ALWAYS accuses the other side of engaging in. As such, it's a nearly meaningless term. I think the real issue is what are the inner forces behind one person, or group of persons digging in their heels and resisting the political objectives of another person or group.

Sometimes, Ray, it can be tradition, "Pappa always voted (fill in the blank) and so did Granpa before him. And so do I." Sometimes it can be pure caprice, "My husband/wife always votes (fill in the blank,) so I always vote (blank)--that way I cancel his/her vote. Hahaha" Core political beliefs mean nothing to most people. If they do, it's only in generalities such as "The Republican party has always stood for smaller government and a balanced budget." or "The Democratic Party has always been the party that supports the poor."

Neither statement is true, of course, but people do tend to think in either abstractions or generalities. That's why people 'label' and why, since labeling is, of necessity, exclusive of anything not covered by that label, there is the digging in of heels and resistance to anything that doesn't fall within a person's label.

If, on the other hand, a person could transcend the labels and become disciples of the Constitution--which is what I think Spryte was suggesting--not that I think that could happen--but, consider this--if it could happen, would we have political parties?

Probably, since political parties were, originally, the result of differing interpretations of the Constitution. But, we might also have more independent voters.

If people voted independently, for example, they would be voting for the issues and not the party.

And this is precisely why I chose the phrase "core beliefs" because it goes beyond, "Daddy was a Democrat so I am too."

Let's switch terminology so we can avoid this confusion in the future. When I say "core belief" what I'm talking about is "world view," the collection of life-long experiences that has gone into forming your opinions of good and bad, right and wrong, desirable and undesirable.

Here's an example of world view. I believe the United States is better off striving to be a "melting pot" rather than a "mosaic." We are better off when there is a national interest in promoting certain commonalities among the citizenship. One example would be common language. I do NOT believe it is desirable to have more than one recognized language of government or commerce. This is not to say that we're supposed to go around checking to make sure nobody is speaking in the language of their homeland. But it IS to say that, in this country, English is the "official" language and everyone who lives in this country needs to be heavily encouraged to learn it. We might have problems, of course, with Mama and Papa from "the old country," but junior and his sister NEED to be taught to speak English in the schools so they can move beyond the bean fields and the sweat shops.

Now, how do I apply my world view politically? Well, who's running for office who thinks like I do on this issue? Ahhhhh, then maybe THAT is who I want to vote for. This establishes why I'm voting like I am. The next question is, how strongly to I feel about the "common language" issue? THAT determines how partisan I might become over it. If it's one of those issues that, to me, is desirable but not necessarily a matter of national salvation, then I have plenty of wiggle room in my political makeup to compromise with those who don't think it's an issue at all. But if I've concluded this IS an issue of critical importance then that would explain why I'm willing to go to the mattresses on it.

And how is that "world view" developed, Ray? Are you saying that 'family' had no role in the development of your opinion of good and bad, right and wrong, etc? Isn't this where 'tradition' comes into play?

If you sat at the dinner table while your parents talked about 'things,' you'd most probably take on the ideas of the parent you considered to be the most dominant--if there was disagreement--or the parent with whom you agreed, wouldn't you? In my mind, it would take an exceptional person to not do so.

Both contending parties have the same issues, don't they? The differences come from different ways of implementing changes to those issues.

One of the first things the Clintons tried to do was change health care. (And, yes, I made it the 'Clintons' because Hillary was right up there next to Bill.) They were 'newbies' and hadn't faced such a rampant display of partisan politics before. They believed their ideas would lead to change--needed change. If the Republicans had been willing to listen, there might have been change.

Instead, the Republican Congress booed them off the stage without even admitting that health care needed reform. Why? Because Republicans, as a party, didn't want what the party calls 'socialized medicine.' They also wanted to teach those upstarts what politics really meant!

But isn't it in the best interests of the United States to provide affordable health care to its citizens? Isn't this discipleship rather than partisanship?

Well, I believe I said that world view is "the collection of life-long experiences that has gone into forming your opinions of good and bad, right and wrong, desirable and undesirable."


I don't believe I specifically excluded any particular "experience" but if that's the way you read it, I guess I can't help that.


This is true, but the "different ways of implementing changes" are heavily influenced by world view.

We all start with generalities and work down from there to the details. As as they say, the devil is in the details. So for instance let's say we're talking about education. Is there anyone in this country who is in favor of crappy education for our children? I would certainly think not, so I think we can safety concluded, to use your words, "Both contending parties have the same issues."

Is there anyone in this country who is perfectly content with the overall results of our current educational system? Well, although I hear people speak with pride about this, that or whatever referring to education in the U.S., still I also hear "education" being used as a campaign issue all the time, and politician running for office wouldn't use it as a campaign issue if they didnt' think lots of voters weren't just a wee bit dissatisfied, so I think it's safe to conclude most people think our educational system could improve.

Now we come to the "implementation of change" phase of the debate. If your world views states that people should "receive according to their achievement" rather than "receive according to their need" then you might come up with the idea that improvement might result from attracting better teachers to the classroom, and because of your world view, you decide a way to do this is to reward teachers who achieve the results you want with more money and other perks. We'll simplify that and just say you plan to give them "merit" pay increases.

Further more, if your world view suggests that an open, free market place is the best of economic models, then you might apply this world view to bettering education by figuring out ways to turn public education into an open market where customers (i.e. parents of school age children) can choose the "education store" they wish to patronize. Perhaps we could call one of these attempts a "school voucher system."

Here we have two specific suggestions for achieving improvement in what we have previously agreed is a "common issue" among all parties involved. Yet, can you see how support or opposition to such specific suggestions might be based upon one's general world view?


I would certainly agree this is an issue of common interest among all parties.


Nope! It's merely a general issue upon which we can all agree.

Then we go on to discuss what each party wants to do to improve education.

That's fair enough, but the conclusion you'd like us to draw is faulty. Because the fact is, that often, people in power work to enrich themselves off the backs of conditions such as poor edcation.

For example, while some will ask for better pay and stronger qualifications for teachers, for curricula which will help he student towards a quality education, others will try to push ideas which will financially benefit themselves and their friends, relatives, etc., not necessarily to the students' benefit. We need only look as far as "No Child Left Behind" to see how that works.

People can become corrupt even when serving a good cause. The oil for food program is a perfect example of this, although it happens domestically as well. In the course of that corruption, the result (giving children a quality education) is lost to the dollar sign.

Excuse me! Where did I mention a "party." Can you not tell the truth? Ever? EVER? Must you always sink into your own cesspool of sleazy lies and misrepresentation?


Oh look! Another example of obsessive compulsive Bush-bashing disorder. Do we need to open up a separate thread so you may indulge your Pissing and Moaning™ and Foaming at the Mouth™ and let the rest of us discuss the topic like, well, you know, like intelligent adults?"

Here.



The fact that you are quoting liz and agreeing with her words hardly qualifies my remark as either a sleazy lie or even a misrepresentation. It's what you said.

You posted it about two and a half hours ago. Seriously, is your memory okay? We can't have you forgetting the past, even the recent past, else you are doomed to live in your own cesspool.

An intelligent adult speaks.

The fact is we are discussing partisanship, and have seen no better example of it than your posts.

(puts on his best Ronald Reagan voice) There you go again!

YOU said:


I defy you to point out WHERE I mentioned any specific party in discussing education. I gave an example of how world view might be tied a proposed solutions. I never mentioned party. Once again, you create the straw man, then slash away at it with your partisan broadsword.

By the way folks. I might mention that my use of "Obsessive Compulsive Bush-Bashing Disorder" is a take off on "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" (OCD) which is a diagnosed behavioral disorder listed in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," published by the American Psychiatric Association and used by psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. It lists different categories of mental disorders and the criteria for diagnosing them.

The supposition that my self-described "OCBBD" might actually BE a "mental disorder" is moving away from mere musing toward actuality with every passing day.