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.

I remember seeing Cabaret (stage musical version) when I was very young. There is a scene in the stage version not seen in the movie...the most riveting moment I have ever seen in theater. A moment that changed how I viewed politics.


The engagement of Sally Bowle's (singer/dancer) land lady (a Catholic) to her fiance, a fruit and veggie vendor (a Jew) is being celebrated. Attending the lively party is Sally, and her boyfriend Cliff (a writer and English teacher from Britain). A gorgeous blond youth with a brown shirt (fropm Hitler's Youth group) begins singing a cappella... He has a voice of an angel as the Jewish fiance and a drunk oblivious Sally Bowles joins him in song. The land lady and Cliff do not smile, and they stop celebrating...knowing this moment is the portend of things to come... Blackout! A god spot comes on...a figure is seated with his back to the audience...a trail of smoke from his cigarette as the MC (greek chorus) turns to look knowingly at the audience. AND, yes we all know...and wish we could just scream at Sally to wake up and warn the fiance to run for his life!

This was the best class in poliitics I have ever attended. I never doubted why our American system of parties has worked so well over the years. Despite at times the childish bickering.... between members, the checks and balances keep certain leaders from having too much power to lead us to a full fledge facisim state...

Unfortunately, CG, the current administration is doing what it can to strengthen the executive branch while simultaneously weakening the other branches.

It's a terrible thing to do to America and its constitution and its people.

. o O (Oh look! There's one of those partisan thingies WanderingSpryte was talking about.)

How can you not be partisan when your country is at risk? And it's not really partisan, it's simply true.

I asked this on other threads....I can't remember which ones. What will an increased power of the executive branch have on a guy like Obama? Will he return the power to equalize our governement...or will he use the new found power offered him as President? I'm just not comfortable with this... but I'd rather trust Obama than McCain, who I know is now a puppet of Rove...and his neo con (fascism) philosophy.

If you read what WS wrote in one of the Interfaith forums you would realize she promotes equality... the "WE" thing...balance in the universe.

. o O (Wow! Another one of those partisan thingies. How predictable!)

When you vote for anythingie party to do with Karl Rove you are voting for his Neo Con agenda..... fine if that is what you want...but I know my Republican inlaws (John Birch society ) are very disenchanted that what they thought as their Republican position has been replaced by a straussian type agenda...leaving "real" Republicans with no voice in their own party.

So, getting back on topic, I'm still interested, WanderingSpryte, in your interpretations of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence regarding political partisanship. I enjoy discussing the U.S. Constitution.

The original method of choosing a president was superior. I wonder if this method of choosing a president would have kept our federal government more balanced? Not part of the constitution...but...


[Original method of electing the president and vice president.6]
(The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate should choose from them by ballot the Vice President.)

I'd modify your 'core beliefs' to say 'core political beliefs.' Since I've been told before that I'm one of the last of the Romantic Idealists, I'd say that political philosophy should be a discipleship rather than a partisanship. This would mean transcending the constrictions of "party" affiliation, which is nothing more than an abstraction of 'core political beliefs.'

I hope you will note that what I said, and how you paraphrased what I said are 2 different things. let's look at what I said.. shall we?



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration Of Independence


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Preamble of the US Constitution

www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

I'd be thrilled to discuss the concept of discipleship within these frameworks, as I also happen to think that Americans at large need to be reminded of what this nation is about. My use of the charters that founded this nation is grounded in my belief and understanding of 'the common good'. Obviously that is a matter of interpretation and perception.


ANDREW BACEVICH: "Empire of consumption." It's a phrase drawn from a book by a wonderful historian at Harvard University, Charles Maier, and the point he makes in his very important book is that, if we think of the United States at the apex of American power, which I would say would be the immediate post World War Two period, through the Eisenhower years, into the Kennedy years. We made what the world wanted. They wanted our cars. We exported our television sets, our refrigerators - we were the world's manufacturing base. He called it an "empire of production."

Sometime around the 1960s there was a tipping point, when the "empire of production" began to become the "empire of consumption." When the cars started to be produced elsewhere, and the television sets, and the socks, and everything else. And what we ended up with was the American people becoming consumers rather than producers.

BILL MOYERS: And you say this has produced a condition of profound dependency, to the extent, and I'm quoting you, "Americans are no longer masters of their own fate."

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, they're not. I mean, the current debt to the Chinese government grows day by day. Why? Well, because of the negative trade balance. Our negative trade balance with the world is something in the order of $800 billion per year. That's $800 billion of stuff that we buy, so that we can consume, that is $800 billion greater than the amount of stuff that we sell to them. That's a big number. I mean, it's a big number even relative to the size of our economy. " Excerpt from Bill Moyer's Journal (Aug 15, 2008)

I see this as a huge problem. Not just due to one party, but by both parties, not just due to one administration, but a succession of them..and the American public for not being viligant and pro-active in our civil responsibilities. By all means let's engage in debate after debate about what is 'the common good' and then let's act from a concensus.. but I have lost confidence in a lot of (not all) people working on 'behalf' of this nation.

I'm not going to be drawn into a line by line debate of the Constitution to use as a weapon against one party or another, just as I do my best not to be sucked into using the Bible as a weapon. Yes, we are going to view how to run this country differently, yes, we are going to disagree on what is 'the common good'.. but that's the point, and that was the intent behind the charters of this nation.

Well excuse the hell out of me. I wasn't trying to twist your words around to be used as a weapon or anything. I was merely trying to reissue an invitation to expand upon the concepts you had introduced in an effort to get away from those who would hijack this thread with partisan turd tossing.


Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Nor is there room to. Harrumph! Harrumph! Time to move to a discussion about partisanship.

I suppose it doesn't matter, since our "core beliefs" are the accumulation of our life experience and if we express those beliefs politically, then I suppose those become our "core political beliefs."

I also understand why the word "discipleship" might be rather useful since we have many people who, when they hear the word "partisanship" react as if they had heard "Niagra Falls!" (see: 3 Stooges)

Perhaps we can split the difference and say "discipleship" describes ones adherence and strength of conviction regarded certain principles of political thought, whereas "partisanship" might refer to how strenuously one promotes those principles in face of political opposition.

. o O (Time to pause a moment and gather reaction)

In a signing statement appended to the preamble, George Bush said "In times of necessity it shall be lawful for the President to declare that the Constitution is neither established nor ordained."

I like that, shows initiative and leadership.

Just like The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005, which was passed to restrict the President's employment of military force in Colombia. Its objective is to keep the United States military out of Colombia's civil war with narco-terrorists, which is pretty reasonable, I think.

Section 502(c) reads: "No United States Armed Forces personnel or United States civilian contractor employed by the United States Armed Forces will participate in any combat operation in connection with assistance made available under this section, except for the purpose of acting in self-defense or during the course of search and rescue operations for United States citizens."

President Bush signed this into law, but also added a signing statement nullifying the