Civil Partisanship
Michelle Cottle makes an excellent point about the limits of political polarization in Washington:
Socially speaking, I’m not convinced Washington is more divided than other places—and less so than some. … I cannot count the number of Dems from places like New York and New Jersey and Boston who, following Bush’s 2004 reelection, I heard wail some variation on: How did this happen? I don’t know a single person who voted for him?! This is not to say that there aren’t conservatives in Connecticut or liberals in Texas. (Thank god for Austin.) But whether they identify with formal political parties or not, people form little social clots with like minded folk and, in the absence of some artificial stimulus, can lead lives as politically segregated as the House floor.
By contrast, it’s hard to be a part of political Washington and not wind up mixing with members of the opposite team. You get introduced to one another and must make small talk at professional dinners, cocktail parties, soccer matches, ballet classes, panel discussions, television green room, fundraisers, and so on. Even people who make a living publicly trashing one another learn to interact politely. Stories are perpetually written about Liberal Senator X’s long-standing friendship with Conservative Senator Y and how that relationship might impact Legislation Z. Conservative lobbyists break bread with lefty reporters. Liberal pollsters invite Republican Hill staffers to their book parties. Bob Barnett serves as everyone’s book agent. (Make that everyone famous.) You discover that members of the opposition don’t have horns (well, most of them don’t) and aren’t trying to destroy the republic. Now and again, you even invite some into your own home.
I lived in New York briefly, and many of the conservatives I knew there had (usually funny) stories about social snubbing as a result of their politics. Guys would get turned down by girls in bars after revealing their politics; dinner party invitations would be reserved for those of a shared political affiliation. D.C., by contrast, has always seemed a more civil place, which is one of the things I like most about it. Silly, narrowly focused stories claiming that D.C.‘s drinking establishments are divided, aside, I think most of the town’s professional political class fairly quickly comes to grips with the fact that the other team lives in town — and probably even drinks at the same bar.
As Cottle points out later in her post, that occasionally frustrates true-blooded partisans who prize their political self-segregation, presumably out of the belief that politics is akin to war. It’s understandable that people take their political ideas seriously. But I feel as if our polity would be aided by more of this sort of across-the-aisle friendliness. That shouldn’t be taken as an appeal to toothless centrism or lame bipartisanship. Rather, I’d like to see more individuals and communities model some form of civil partisanship. Political devotees of all ideological stripes ought to fight vigorously for their ideas. But playing hard — indeed, playing to win — shouldn’t prevent anyone from shaking hands with their opponent and having a drink after the game.
On an intrinsic level I agree with you, and clearly, I’m not personally opposed to working with and engaging with people on the “other side”. The problem that occurs to me often is that this is part of why many Americans are so cynical about politics; they see the whole thing as a boys club that’s more interested in preserving their own power than creating positive change.
— Freddie · Feb 13, 10:48 PM · #
Ummm, well, that depends. On principal, yes, of course one wants to do the civil thing and shake hands with one’s opponent and stand him for a pint at the local. All very matey, so long as you both agree it was a game you were playing in the first place. After marching with fellow liberal antiwar activists in the late 60s, however, R.J. Neuhaus discovered that for many of their number, the Movement was also their Church. When Neuhaus explained that he already had a Church, he was effectively shunted aside.
So, yes, if your political views are subservient to your metaphysical beliefs, then civil partisanship should be the standard to which we all aspire (especially so for those whose moral code dictates loving your neighbor as yourself). The problem of uncivil discourse arises when challenging someone’s political views is tantamount to challenging the core of their belief system or their morality.
— Jeff Wentling · Feb 13, 10:50 PM · #
First, what Freddie said. Second, having spent my share of years living and working inside the Beltway, I will say that DC is the only place I’ve ever seen a bartender refuse to serve a patron upon learning that he liked George Bush. And that is a true story; and it was not a bar that you would associate as a Dem hangout, either.
That said, it really does depend a lot on the region you’re talking about.
And all that said, the bigger problem that ultimately results from DC is that so often its focus is so entirely on politics that it becomes kind of all-encompassing (hence the “Beltway Bubble”). There is in many ways only a superficial understanding of what people outside that bubble actually think or care about.
And when incivility does rear its ugly head, it tends to take on an extremely personal tone that to those of us outside the Beltway is comparable to an ongoing war between two popular high school girls. And that’s probably because the political classes of DC often do resemble a high school; or at the very least the society page of the New York Times.
Still, the Capitol Hill and Capital Area Alumni Network softball leagues are THE BEST!
— Mark Thompson · Feb 13, 11:50 PM · #
I have never lived in DC, but in NYC, where I have lived most of my life, I would say that, if you are white, you have to be moving in very very Jewish circles to feel isolated by having Republican/conservative views. I don’t know what happens if you are among the 50% or so of NYC residents who are non-white, but I’m guessing that no one else here knows that either.
— y81 · Feb 14, 05:25 AM · #
That’s cool. In Chattanooga, I got cornered around a keg Thriller-style* because I expressed a preference for Obama.
* Seriously: it was at a Halloween party.
— JA · Feb 14, 05:32 AM · #
Freddie — I think your right about the public’s perception that the friendly relationships between many DC politicos is about preserving power. But that’s mainly a result of sham centrism/bipartisanship, which rarely has much to do with real compromise and is instead about securing the positions of those involved in the deal making. However, that’s not what interests me. I think it’s possible and desirable to argue forcefully for what you believe but also not to demonize the other side, and indeed to remain civil, sometimes even friendly with them. That’s what I mean by civil partisanship — not power-sharing arrangements amongst the ideological flexible.
— Peter Suderman · Feb 14, 09:17 AM · #
Actually, Peter, I think a lot of people have trouble telling those two things apart from one another, and suspect that the kind of civility you long for would inevitably be seen as the very kind of “sham centrism/bipartisanship” you attempt to contrast with it. Because in my experience most people are like sort of like Jeff describes – their political views are the product of their core moral and metaphysical beliefs, shaped by cultural the signifiers of affiliation, which inevitably amplify differences. This makes politics personal, rather than rational, and civility suspect and tantamount to treason.
— Joseph F. · Feb 15, 11:22 PM · #