 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
|
Partisanship has far more virtues than flaws January 23, 2008 |
The current rants by
many morally superior independents and the
politicians who pander to them about “denial of
voting rights” in the Feb. 5 election here
indicates a further breakdown in the American
education system and blowback to the fundamental
principles of representative government.
Arizona law doesn’t allow people to vote in a presidential preference election who aren’t registered to vote in a political party 28 days before that election. Good. In other elections Arizona allows those not registered in a political party to wait until the day of the party primary to choose which party they prefer. Bad. Political parties are coalitions. Democracy doesn’t work without them. Why should those who reject membership in a party participate in deciding for that membership who their candidates and policy makers are? If a voter is disinclined to participate in that party, then what entitles that voter to the same prerogatives as those who do? Pick a party or sit it out, your choice. For years those ignorant of or attempting to subvert the process have claimed that partisanship itself is bad. There are examples of excesses, but this misconception is often reinforced by political party leaders and office-holders clueless about their roles. All functioning democracies in the rest of the world have political parties. Those stemming from the English parliamentary system tend to a two-party system in which coalitions are formed before the general election. Multi-party systems used in Germany, Israel and elsewhere allow for proportional representation where coalitions are formed afterwards. Candidates often don’t even represent a geographical constituency but are placed on a list by party leaders who have considerably more power than they do here. The American system is one of the few that allows voter participation in choosing a party’s candidates in the first place. Remember that when political know-nothings slobber over how other countries are more democratic than we are. Most don’t even have primaries, or voter-generated initiatives, referendums and recalls either. Political parties do more than pick candidates. They set the platforms on which those candidates run. The party brand name tells you something about the product. We require other products, from applesauce to zithers, to be labeled concerning their specific contents. Why balk at labeling those who wish to govern us? When the contents are suspect or become undesirable, product sales decline. Don’t like it, then don’t buy it. Others are available. That’s called “freedom.” Parties may change agendas as electorates change opinions. Or not. Many Democrats wonder why some remote corners of the Republic still have a Jefferson-Jackson Day. Parties may also hold fast to certain agenda items currently considered unpopular and work to change the electorate’s mind or find other items to brand that will overcome those deficiencies. GOP opposition to abortion and more gun control are examples of the former. Those out of power can also regain it by simply waiting for the opposition to make errors in judgment or commit corrupt acts. Voters do not make choices solely on issues but often on competence and integrity or even the personality traits of candidates. The role of political parties is to supply a coherent set of issues that remain reasonably constant. The elimination of partisan local governments instigated by wonks and other do-gooders has led to the policy confusion rampant in most local governments and the conversion of many city councils and school boards into potted plants dominated by the unelected bureaucracies they supposedly control. In non-partisan settings, elected officials lose not only a coherent policy base but also a support group. The electorate loses an important check on those they chose. Note that as the role of parties declines, the role of lobbyists grows. To constantly complain about “partisanship” is as pointless as complaining about elections themselves. To demand participation in a group in which one chooses not to be a member and claim deprivation when it isn’t given anyway is fundamentally absurd.
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
