Polimom’s been meaning to write this post for a while, but it needed a catalyst — and a recent comment thread has brought the subject front and center. Ed T wrote:
I still don’t quite understand this whole “relentless | hard-core partisanship”. Jeesh, folks, politics is about ones values – and I certainly would be very wary of someone who was wishy-washy about their values. I can (and do, often) disagree with John (Blue Bayou), but I read his stuff – he is consistent with his values, and thus I might just learn something. Ditto for Sparkle and the conservatives (with whom I am much more aligned philosophically.) And Polimom – what can I say, she is an excellent writer, and very, very thought-provoking.
Ed T often makes very thoughtful, reasoned comments here, and I’m glad he made this one.
I agree that politics is about one’s values. However, I don’t see partisanship as simply being consistent with them, and so it looks to me like we have a semantics problem. (From Merriam Webster online)
Main Entry: 1par·ti·san
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partian, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
It’s that “especially” that seems to be causing a problem.
To Polimom, a partisan blogger’s identity is wrapped around bashing the other party, or merely reverberating in the echo-chamber of the hard right or left.
They tend to be shrilly, sanctimoniously focused on their party as (variously) the innocents, the saints, or the saviors. It goes beyond value consistency; partisanship is repetitively hostile and imho, it makes everything they write of questionable credibility.
So — when Polimom writes “partisans”, or “partisanship”, these are the things going through my mind; when I encounter it, I stop processing the wider message. It’s just not worth the effort required to forage through the garbage for sustenance.
I do, however, occassionally call it out.
So back to the original comment thread. Ed T referred to both John (here and here) and Sparkle (here and here); two bloggers who are quite different ideologically. He sees them as being similar (“Pot. Kettle. Black.”), but honestly, I don’t… and frankly, I often disagree with them both, too. But from here, the impression is that one spends enormous energy bashing the opposite party, or pouncing directly on commenters who differ… though not always, while the other trends toward rational discussion or filtered analysis… though not always.
… which brings me to Polimom and the title of this post.
Polimom doesn’t run a traditional blogroll. Linking to me doesn’t, by definition, add a reciprocal link. Instead, there’s a section for Daily Reads (it needs overhauling badly), and another called (Usually) Politically Sane.
It’s a pretty small group… and there’s a reason for that: it’s hard to find bloggers who can refrain from non-stop ranting. Everybody goes off now and again, but for many, it’s the rule.
There have been links that I’ve removed because, for whatever reason, they went into the partisan weeds and I stopped reading them. There are others that I’m reading in the background but haven’t yet added to that list… and may never, depending upon how far off my own moderate position they are. (Examples here and here.)
I’ve gotten really picky (and less patient) as the election approaches, too. If the goal is the ascension (or retention) of one’s power for its own sake, then Polimom has very little use for it. If one’s focus is almost exclusively on the bashing of moonbats or wingnuts, or on how they’re out to get you, that’s paranoia… and it’s nuts.
It’s a mad, mad world out there, and it’s hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Partisanship makes it a little easier, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.