The concept of "bipartisan"-ism can only exist in the context of a duopoly. That is, "bipartisan" means "supported by two parties," eliminating the concept of any extra-Party ideology. It's a term often used by policy wonks to indicate that our major political parties—the Democrats and the Republicans—have some non-zero number of members who agree with members of the opposite party on a given issue or piece of legislation. This doesn't mean the parties "themselves" are necessarily "bipartisan" in this regard, as there could be as few as two members (one from each party) in agreement, technically making the topic of discussion "bipartisan."
In today's political climate (one which this author would describe as "hyper-partisan"), "bipartisan" efforts seem to get a lot of praise simply by virtue of being "bipartisan." (In reality, of course, nearly all matters in Congress are handled in a bipartisan manner, but these rarely attract attention—mostly because they're not particularly "sexy," interesting issues to which most people care to pay attention.)
I am an independent—as most Americans say they are—but while I tend to find myself generally more in agreement with Democrats, I believe this is simply a result of recent shifts within the Republican party (specifically, the emergence of the "Trumpian-Republican.") Overall, I have strong disagreements with Democrats just as I have strong disagreements with Republicans; it depends on the issue. Recently I've been thinking about the concept of "nonpartisan"-ism, how that is a fundamentally different concept than "bipartisan"-ism (and why that distinction is important in today's world), and began wondering if the solution to our duopoly problem isn't more political parties, but none. Political parties are not established in the Constitution, and I will examine the ways in which parties (and, more specifically, partisan behavior/rhetoric) may be harmful to our democracy.
First off: I'm not writing this to rebuke Rep. Amash, or attempt to "call him out" in any way. To the contrary, the fact that he engaged reasonably, openly, and honestly is all I can ask of any public servant. And I do, quite frequently (ask, that is). This isn't the first time anyone has actually responded, but it is one of the only, and it's certainly the most civil I remember. While I don't know the ultimate effect (if any) of my comments (on Rep. Amash or anyone else), apart from the initial political hesitation, it was a good exchange and I respect him more for having engaged the question and conducted an honest dialogue. I don't expect (nor would I want) all elected representatives to agree with me, and very few will ever honestly answer a direct question—all of which are among the reasons I trust and follow Rep. Amash to begin with. His inclusion in this piece should be, above all, an indication that his service to this nation is (in this author's opinion) genuine, commendable, and imperfect (that is to say: "human").
Now, I've wanted to write something about political parties, their unintended development after the first presidential administration, and the consequences that first post-Washington election has had on the history of the balance of powers throughout this nation's history. But, in addition to just being generally "busy" (not to mention a master of procrastination) I couldn't come up with a good "point" (what academics might refer to as a "thesis," though I don't think anything I've written anytime recently can rightfully claim to have a real "thesis" other than the one I just pulled out of my ass to tell you, "that's the thesis." But, I hope to get there soon!) And then I noticed something: a Congressional Representative from Michigan's Third District, Justin Amash, was both pushing back against Executive overreach (always something of which I'm a fan, but especially since we've had a manchild who can't take "no" for an answer take over the Presidency—swallowing essentially the entire GOP Establishment with him—until the swearing-in of the 116th United States Congress, with Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi being chosen by her party to lead them for another term as the Speaker of the House.) and not just pushing back against his party, but the concept of "partisans," in general.
I cheered on these efforts: as a proud, independent, non-partisan, it's rare to see such rhetoric from elected officials; at best, they either avoid partisan language or frame it in a "bipartisan" way.
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1091013954095247360?s=20
- justinamash
Naturally, then, I was shocked to see rhetoric like this coming from one of my favorite Congresspeople. (After all: if it could happen to him, it could happen to anyone!) I thought there must have been some bit of news I'd missed; I read through the linked article, and it didn't make any more sense to me, so I did the only thing I know how to do: rabble-rouse on social media. Much to my surprise, I quickly received a reply from Rep. Amash. It didn't answer my question, but I understand Congresspeople are very busy and it's possible he was, unintentionally, only replying to the part that stuck out to him. I hoped I would get lucky with a follow-up, and—again, to my surprise—Rep. Amash quickly replied. But this time, I felt, the answer was getting "worse…"
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1091021413325127683?s=20
- justinamash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)#Question_dodging
Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned [...] wants to avoid giving a direct response. [...] Often the aim of dodging a question is to make it seem as though the question was fulfilled, leaving the person who asked the question feeling satisfied with the answer, unaware that the question was not properly answered.
The thing is, while I fully agree with everything the Congressman says in this tweet, there seems to be an implication that I don't believe a Democrat-controlled House would expand Executive authority—which (while I don't expect the Congressman to know this, personally) is a view I've shared since 2013. Regardless, a great deal of space is spent explaining something I didn't ask. (Of course I know he serves in Congress with them; that doesn't mean he knows their inner thoughts or feelings any better than any of us. To presume one knows what another is thinking in the present because of some action taken in the past is both foolhardy and arrogant. I don't deny serving in Congress would put him in a better position to make an "educated guess" regarding the thinking of other members of Congress, but "hearsay" is not legally admissible testimony for a reason—and this doesn't even amount to that.)
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1091023352989433857?s=20
- justinamash
Finally, I get an answer to my question. I can understand why a politician would be hesitant to give this answer, and I commend Representative Amash for being honest.
Unfortunately, what I can not commend him for is remaining fully "nonpartisan." When one levies a charge against members of the opposite party without evidence, even if taking a jab at one's own party at the same time, that's undoubtedly "partisan" behavior. Partisanship at its worst divides Americans unnecessarily, and that seems to be the very point of the original tweet: with no evidence Democrats have taken such a position, it's impossible for citizens to reasonably rally against them for that position—they simply claim, "that's not our position." One can choose to believe them or not, but who is in a better position to define their own position on an issue than the one whose position is in question? (My position regarding that last sentence is that it includes the word "position" far too many times. Who's to say otherwise, other than me?) If you don't trust that person to tell the truth simply because of their party affiliation, guess what? You're behaving in a partisan manner.
Republicans are, of course, not the only party to do things like this. In the interest of time, I'm going to cut most of this section, but I want to bring attention to one thing I heard recently that shows even some of our greatest heros are still, at their core, old-school, pork-loving politicians. Bernie Sanders is no exception.
In short, Sanders is in support of building F-35s as part of a weapons program with a projected cost of $1.5 trillion—the most expensive in U.S. history. The major problem with this is that the F-35 simply doesn't work. But, it's expected to bring hundreds of millions of dollars to his state; who needs principles when you've got pork, eh?
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html
Again, I am planning to write more about this topic in another piece in the near future, but given its relevance to current events, I wanted to touch on the situation with Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and the growing problems surrounding his Governorship.
Simply put: Democrats can not tolerate this behavior, as they appear to be working to capitalize on Trump's hate and build a brand based on tolerance, inclusion, equal rights/protections under the law for all, and an end to old-guard casual misogyny, racism, etc. (Frankly, it's the most politically organized the Democrats have been in this author's entire memorable life [and I've been following politics since I was around 12 years old, if not earlier.]) In addition, Northtam's successor—Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax
—is black. Who better to lead in healing the Commonwealth of Virginia (and, indeed, the nation) after a racist dust-up like Northam's? Democrats calling for Northam's resignation appear to be doing not only the "politically savvy" thing, but "the right thing for the right reason."
The moral and ethical choice is staring you in the face, Governor: resign immediately.
Partisanship for its own sake hurts the country, because (while it may be entirely true from the perspective of the person saying it) partisan statements are, by definition, one-sided and anything one-sided should ALWAYS be taken with a grain of salt. In virtually all cases, reality turns out to be significantly less stark than "partisans" would have you believe. So why engage in purely partisan behavior for its own sake? For the benefit of the duopoly: by 2016, for example, "establishment" Democrats and Republicans had become so similar, Vanity Fair wondered if Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were essentially the same candidate (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/is-hillary-clinton-turning-into-jeb-bush). For years, the two parties have fabricated "wedge" issues (many of which arguably have no place in a conversation regarding who to elect as President, but nevermind that) to give voters reasons to side with one party over the other, while many of the most significant policies (such as the continued growth of our cancerous Military Industrial Complex—the most expensive government entitlement program of all time) had little-to-no difference between the two major parties.
It's possible to be a non-partisan member of a major party—at least, once you're already elected, through the end of that term (at which point, if you haven't been a good "team player"—or at least attracted a lot of positive attention by being famously "maverick," as in the case of the late, great Senator John McCain—the party will presumably force you out of office. Hence the need for easier ballot access, created by the duopoly it's meant to destroy. [I never said this would be easy.]) And until we've made some kind of changes to the Electoral College (either eliminate it, remove State-level laws binding delegates' votes thus defeating the purpose of the system in the first place, or some other solution that ensures we never again "elect" a President who does not win the popular vote… I believe those results were exactly what Putin was hoping for: nothing does as much damage to our democracy as the people voting for one candidate and "the system"—OUR system—installing her opponent.)
Regardless of how you feel about policy, ideology, whatever: if you are a true patriot, the success of the American Experiment depends on citizens removing their "team" colors and working to fight for the same cause—specifically: a robust democracy, representative of and accountable to the people. In times of prosperity, peace, and safety, we can afford to have some in-fighting; in 2016, Obama warned Putin in no uncertain terms that any attempt to interfere with our elections' sovereignty would be considered "an act of war." Putin went ahead with it anyway…and did so again through 2018, and continues to do so today. Other countries are learning from this model and using it for themselves to attack "western-style" democracies. We are at war, and our President refuses to admit it. The ONLY way out of this that doesn't require two more years of waiting to see what seemingly random (and arguably dangerous) policy Tweet comes next requires all of us to rise above partisanship and declare ourselves members of the "Citizens of the United States of America" caucus, whose primary goal is the preservation, protection, and defense of our Constitution. Attacking other Americans who are actually on the same side sets all of us back by spreading misinformation/obfuscating facts. Let's all be virtuous, patriotic Americans, forget about power/parties (for the time being, at the very least), look for the core values shared by all Americans (I don't know exactly what those are yet; I know there are plenty, so I'm looking, too) and center our discussions around how we can collectively solve whatever problem(s) arise (actual or perceived; after all, "perception is reality," so just because you don't see something as a "real" problem doesn't mean it isn't "real" to someone else) together, without childish name-calling or put-downs, without claiming someone that doesn't have the same view as you is an "enemy," and without consideration for the establishment duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. We can yell at each other about this, or calmly talk things out like mature adults and more than likely come to some kind of agreement, if only to "agree to disagree;" in every case, these conversations will build respect among Americans of differing ideologies. It's tough to be angry at someone when you understand their perspective and can empathize—even if you don't agree with them.
As I stated earlier: Nothing undermines the concept of Democracy more than the people voting one way, and "the system" installing the opposite candidate—and whether or not you think Trump or his campaign had anything to do with Russia's involvement in election meddling, the fact is that Russian meddling did take place, and they did it specifically to help Trump; given the polling as late as Election Day, no "mainstream" source seemed to think Trump had a chance. So, I'm sure the notion of the Electoral College going against the popular vote was what Putin hoped for most of all, particularly after witnessing how nasty that was when it happened in 2000.
If we go through the process of "correcting" this in a partisan, political manner (that is, impeachment and/or removal without majority Republican support) it will look like a coup by the Democrats—particularly if it comes out that Pence had any involvement, or we have any other reason to think he would also be removed from office, as was the case with Agnew during the Watergate hearings, since the next line-of-succession is Speaker of the House, a Democrat: Nancy Pelosi. If "rank-and-file" Republicans were against this, but Senate Republicans supported it, Trump would be removed from office; partisanship would further Putin's cause by increasing polarization and division.
Therefore, despite the myriad reasons to impeach Trump yesterday, Democrats must behave in a non-partisan manner—not simply doing what they believe is right (even if they can corral some Republicans to go along with them), but doing so in a way that preserves the integrity of our democracy rather than causing an even greater rift than already exists (which requires the support of a majority of Republicans). While House Republicans have (lately, at least) shown plenty of willingness to vote against Trump, (most) Republican Senators, as well as Joe Machin (D, WV), still seem to be working on growing that backbone.
Donald Trump had at least one thing right in 2016 that Hillary Clinton didn't even have on her radar: "political elitism" IS a huge problem. Virtually every President since WWII has been a party favorite, and the two parties are entirely bipartisan on at least one issue: maintaining their power. Democrat & Republican candidates have become increasingly similar to the point that they'd become nearly indistinguishable aside from branding…yet they continued to fight publicly as if the other side was the "enemy."
That's not compromise; that's a union headed towards divorce. The best thing Donald Trump has done for politics was to make Americans realize "whoa, we really DO control this thing."
So, now that we yanked the e-brake on the expressway (just to test it out…), we need to embrace the bucking of the status-quo and re-evaluate what we want to represent—as a nation; as Americans. That's not something on which we're all going to agree, but I think we can agree that we need a leader who is going to both instill faith and confidence in the American people that we can represent a positive force in the world (and, as one of the richest nations on earth, are duty-bound to do so).
I'm not making a case for an independent candidate in 2020 (Howard Schultz—and all billionaires—need to find something else to do for the next couple years. Everyone in this country deserves to run for President, but 2020 is not the year; not before we prevent the possibility of another Electoral College SNAFU. Until then, with the safety of the republic itself no longer in question, any Presidential candidate should work through the major party process, or an established third-party. If you're not on all the ballots—50 States and D.C.—you don't belong in the 2020 General Election.); rather, I'm making the case that we need to do away with ballot access restrictions, fix campaign finance, etc. as we "phase out" (i.e., kill) our two-party system and move towards a no-party system. (I look forward to writing more about the specifics of how I imagine this would work in an upcoming piece, but it's worth noting that political parties are not, inherently, part of the US Government.) After all, there's nothing in the Constitution about parties:
[T]he first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address.
Seems to have been a rather prescient observation...
I'll even go so far as to quote Senator Rick Scott (R, FL) from his appearance this morning (Sunday, February 3, 2019) on NBC's Meet the Press:
Everyone's got to stop saying this is about winning and losing. It's not. It's about what's good for the American public. … We've got to make sure people start working together, and I think everybody's got to do that and I'm going to do my best to be a part of that.
—Senator Rick Scott (R, FL)
(Personally, I don't think Sen. Scott has, thus far, been a great mascot for the above statement, but in his own mind I'm sure he is. If you watch the interview from which that quote was taken, there are—in this author's perspective—plenty of self-contradictions, but that statement is one with which I fully agree.)
Many of the largest issues we face today are fairly easily solvable, but only when we agree that we're all on the same side. Although the nation is more polarized than ever in terms of partisan polling, all of these divides apply to specific policies. When it comes to "big picture" issues, Americans are largely in agreement; that is, we share a common set of values—we just disagree on how best to apply those values in terms of policy. (And lack a leader to help articulate exactly what those values are.)
The only way to reach compromise is to have a conversation, and making blanket statements about any group (including either political party) is not conducive to open dialogue; there is as much diversity of thought among members of any political party as there is among independents. I think it's extremely unfortunate that we have political parties in this country at all, but that's a discussion for another piece…
And on Super Bowl Sunday, God said: "Let there be football." And so it was. God looked down upon His creation and saw that it was good. God smiled, raising his clenched fists and shouting with the force of a trillion hurricanes: "GO RAMS!"
