A clear problem with a two party system is that by essentially making every election a binary choice means that partisans are prone to, especially over time, vest their side (in their own minds) with unlimited virtue and the side with undying vice. Call it the Crossfire/Hannity and Colmes Effect wherein all of the complexities of the political world have to be centered in one side or the other. I have termed the way in which we have a tendency to protect (or, at least, excuse) our own side as the “Deion Sanders Effect” (although, as I note in the original post, the younger members of the audience might want to call it the “Terrell Owens Effect”).
Because of the dichotomization of choices, we start thinking solely in terms of whether a particular event, or set of events, helps our side keep power or not. We, in turn, eschew critically evaluating our own side, or asking whether or not that which appealed to us about a given party in the first place–i.e., whether certain values and policies are, indeed, being promoted.
The response to such observations is that the “well, even a flawed version of our side is better than any version of their side.” Perhaps, but there does come a point where one’s side may lose their claim on one’s loyalty.
It seems to me that rabid partisanship often leads to three deadly sins:
1) The inability to look at one’s party with objectivity (a sin that has been committed rampantly in the last week or so).
2) The characterization of the other side as the enemy (rather than simply people with whom there are disagreements).
3) The notion that all that matters in politics is winning.
Sphere: Related Content
It isn’t just a vice of the two-party system, Dr. Taylor. Anyone who is overly partisan is quite capable of considering anyone and everyone else as the enemy and failing to be objective.
May I suggest a look at George Lakoff’s “Thinking Points” and his other work on “deep framing” for a probable reason why. Think of “deep frames” as reality maps - they aren’t easily amenable to simple facts and logic because facts and logic are understood and interpreted by reference to those very maps. Facts and logic have to be framed in language that must reflect the values and language of the deep frame before it can even by processed.
Maybe its time for those from all points of the political compass who consider the point of politics to be good governance “by the people and for the people” - all the people - to work on their deep framing a whole lot more.
Regards, Cernig
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, October 7, 2024 @ 2:56 pm
You are correct: partisanship can lead to the demonization of others regardless of the number of parties.
However, with a two party system I would argue that the intense need for your side to right (i.e, correct) is amplified by the fact there there only two choices.
The only way to give ground even a little is to defect from the system entirely. If there are multiple parties, there is at least the opportunity for alliance shifts at the margins-especially if one can follow one’s values from one party to another.
With only two choices, one has to either go with the proverbial “lesser of two evils” or simply profess the evil of the other side and the virtue of one’s own.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 7, 2024 @ 3:03 pm
I think your certainly on to something here. In a usual election today, you sell you message to the people. Now, people are busy and don’t have a lot of time to listen to indepth analysis (unless you a political junky like us bloggers), so they end up being sold primarily on talking points. These talking points are obviously huge oversimlifications like the black and white distinctions you point out above.
Now, in a multi-party system where you need some form of multi-party consensus to get any legislation passed, you need to not only sell your ideas to the masses, but too each other. Politicians, oddly enough, have a lot of time to think about politics, and can, in theory, go a lot more in depth on a topic than is possible by the average voter. (while I’ll agree US politicians don’t go in depth right now, I would argue that is because they aren’t forced to in any way)
Comment by Kevin H — Saturday, October 7, 2024 @ 4:39 pm
[…] Exhibit A of what I termed earlier in the day one of the “deadly sins of partisanship” (#1, in fact): an audio clip of James Dobson buying buying the prank hypothesis regarding Foley. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » He Blinded Me with Partisanship — Saturday, October 7, 2024 @ 10:03 pm
to me, eschewing critical evaluation is an example of being irrational. In this situation, one is choosing an emotional attachment to party over his or her own actual best interest without taking the time evaluate or reevaluate the situation. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 8:41 am
I think that that problem (or, at least, a problem) in this ongoing dialogue about rationality is that you seem to keep setting up “rational” as either perfect, or somehow about being correct. To say that human beings are, in a general sense, rational is not to say that they are Vulcans who have completed the Kolinahr, but that they act in what they perceive of as their best interest and that there are discernible reasons for their behaviors. (I get the impresion from our conversations that you want “rationality” to be more than it is).
It does not preclude being wrong. I am ultimately saying that many allow themselves to believe that their political interests are so tied to a particular party that they then believe it is in their best interest to eschew criticism.
(And if one is a pundit, politician or otherwise makes one’s living for being partisan, that it is wholly rational to eschew criticism of one’s party).
That may result in an incorrect assessment of said party, but it isn’t irrational.
Indeed, perhaps I am wrong in my assessment, and that that better route to achieving my political goals is to be a rabid partisan.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 10:03 am
I don’t really think I’m wanting rational to be more than it is, and sometime I feel like it is you that is trying to make it a black and white issue.
I’m not saying that people are either completely rational or completely irrational. I’m just saying that a particular act can be mostly rational or mostly irrational.
I’m not saying that because it turns out to be wrong or decided without access to all the facts that it is irrational. That’s not what I’m saying at all.
My understanding of rational, to put Plato aside for the moment, is to make a decision based on self-interest and with goals in mind. It is a two part definition that requires both aspects to be considered rational.
If one becomes so focused on a goal, whatever that goal may be, that they lose sight of their own self-interest, doesn’t it become irrational to continue to persue that goal? (Think Khan persuing Kirk to his death.) Alternatively, if one is seeking immediate self interest (such as some sort of carnal gratification) without some goal orientation or thought of the consequenses, it would seem to also be not rational, if not irrational. Any animal, human or otherwise, will persue its immediate self interest in the carnal sense without it having anything to do with rational capability.
Somehow I feel like we are still disconnected on this subject.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 10:55 am
Indeed, as the funny thing is that I was thinking that you were the one trying to make this into black and white.
The reason I say this is because most of thee conversation seem to come down to someone acting with emotion, thus disproving that human beings are rational. (At least that is how the argument keeps coming across)
The main disconnect that I think we have (although I could be wrong) is that you tend to always bring the conversation back to individuals and specific actions. I am mainly arguing in terms of aggregate behavior.
I don’t buy the Plato model, btw, at least not the way it is presented in the Republic, so that may be part of the disconnect.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 11:16 am
How dost thou define rational, por favor? Just a simple straight forward definition. Maybe that would help.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 11:24 am
I am dealing with it in terms of the decision-making of actors.
A rational actor is one who has the capacity to assess given options and pursue the one that the actors perceives to be in his/her best interest.
The ability to assess the best option will be effected by such factors as incomplete or incorrect information, cultural filters and so forth.
Rationality assumes free will and the ability to assess one’s own circumstances and best interest within the constraints of available information
I assume that human beings are fundamentally thinking creatures, and the better they are able to collect and assess information, the better able they are to make decisions.
To me to assert that irrationality is the dominant characteristic of man is not only to go to a very dark place (at least potentially, look at Nietzsche, Mussolini and Hitler) but also to assume that ultimately human beings are really just so many talking animals (except, perhaps, for some transcendent elite).
Further, I think that empirically speaking the assumptions that people are fundamentally, if imperfectly, rational explains more than does the notion that they are fundamentally irrational.
I not sure if this helps or not.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 11:45 am
I think I know where you are coming from now.
And I don’t think I have ever said that irrationality was the dominant characteristic of humans.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 11:50 am
Just for the record, that doesn’t mean this discussion is completely over, just that I think I know where you are coming from now.
And we both have writing to do, so we should probably let this go for now.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 12:02 pm
Perhaps not. However, the argument seems to have long been that they are not dominantly rational. I suppose I assumed from there that the alternative was that they were predominantly irrational.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 12:03 pm
I believe I recently used the term 50/50. but anyway. . .
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 12:24 pm
I suppose my point is that there is a dark side to human nature and to ignor that fact is dangerous. Individual human beings do not always act rationally and, as a result, human beings acting together in a group will not always act rationally. I am NOT saying that any one group (elites, etc.) are more rational than any other group. Any person or any group of persons are capable of falling into irrational behavior given the proper circumstance. Theory and reality should therefore account for that fact.
All people, cultures and states are capable of acting rationally. I accept that as natural fact. I just don’t accept that they always use that capacity especially in times of great emotional distress or turmoil.
Does that make sense?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 12:53 pm
Oh, I had no illusions about that.
And yes, we do.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 2:37 pm
are we on the same page now?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 2:48 pm
Methinks that that remains to be seen.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 3:58 pm
of course.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 4:04 pm
Are we at least in the same book? the same library?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2024 @ 9:48 pm