Blogged
Democrats for Mitt. Sigh.
The Great Orange Satan commands his minions to prop up a reeling Willard Romney so he can survive the Michigan primary. Someone’s blurred the distinction between “crashing the gate” and “trashing the place,” apparently. But hey, it’ll be “fun.” And the Repubs do it all time, so, so, so there!
The older I get, the less impressed I am with hyperpartisanism. From any quarter.
The only worthwhile part of this little stunt (apart from the obligatory rightist outrage) is the “Democrats for Mitt” graphic, which is both funny and well-wrought. The rest of it? Eh, not so much.
More: Kos reiterates, clarifies, and otherwise rationalizes “Democrats for Mitt.”
Doesn’t the party out of power usually wait until it’s actually been in power for a while before aping the excesses of the opposition? “Movement progressives” don’t have that kind of time, apparently.
Three cheers for hyperpartisanism! May it go on forever.
Matt Blunt impersonates Karl Rove, lamely
Next trip, we’re staying at a Marriott
Twenty-three hundred
Call and response
Republican robocalls
Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Advocated
Linked
Commented
- Phil Barron on Labor Day, indeed
- Phil Barron on Who needs Google Chrome - besides Google?
- Digitizdat on Who needs Google Chrome - besides Google?
- Phil Barron on War on civilians
- jawbone on War on civilians
Just to clarify: you’re opposed on principle (partisan machinations are bad) rather than because you think it will be ineffective? I guess I’m not sure I understand what “hyperpartisanism” is as distinct from “partisanship” and why it’s a bad thing.
I don’t claim to speak for our author, but I think he’s going for something along these lines:
“Partisanship” = Party affiliation, preference, advocacy, support, etc., because you think a particular party will do a better job. Characterized by at least token recognition that the party you do not support also contains good, decent, reasonable people who simply disagree with you. (In fact, you may learn your most important lessons from them.) The means are as important as the ends.
“Hyperpartisanism” = Your party is justified in pursuing pretty much any means, including breaking the rules in spirit and possibly also the letter, to achieve power; because, hey: your guys are the good guys and the other guys are evil. Period. Hyperbole, truth-stretching, demonization: these are all perfectly legitimate means to your end. Corrupting the system in order to save it? No problem.
These, even for my own purposes, are imprecise definitions. After all, I gave them each a whole minute or so. But I think Philip’s basic intent is pretty clear. For further elaboration of some similar themes, have a look at “The Closing of the American Mind”, in Newsweek, at http://www.newsweek.com/id/81599
I think being willing to vote in bad faith is hyperpartisan, while fighting hard for the candidate you believe in without being dishonest is strongly partisan. May be a newly coined word, but it makes sense to me.
The word’s clumsiness is where it gets its charm!
My 1950s civics text says that “because we can,” “because it’ll be fun,” and “because they did it to us first” are poor reasons for an outsider to call for mucking around in someone else’s primary, and will be poorly received. Especially when there are alternatives for Michigan Dems who actually want to make a statement of their own instead of jumping through hoops for Markos.
In general, I think this kind of stunt (blatant election meddling) draws a bright line between engaging in essential, vital, and frankly inevitable partisanship and becoming the very thing you claim to oppose.
As for the ‘effectiveness’ of the Dems for Mitt thing - that is, the likelihood of a Zombie Romney campaign rising from the grave of MI to shamble through the streets of GOPerville in search of brains - your guess is as good as mine.
Eh, I guess voting in the opposing party’s primary is a bit of dirty pool, but it’s pretty far down my list of things to get outraged about, mainly because there isn’t a sportsmanship prize in politics: if you lose, you just lose.
I can see why one might find it distasteful, though.
mrh: Well, as long as it’s on the list. :-)
But…but…Mitt’s pretty! http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2008/01/14/moos.perfect.mitt.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
The first time I smelled the bad breath of ultra-conservatism up close occurred when I worked — one hour per week — for an ultra-conservative. I, lucky me, was there during the hour that Rush Limbaugh’s TV show aired (so you know how long ago that was), which probably did more to interest me in LIBERAL politics than any other influence. Anyway, this guy was proud of boasting that he had voted for Jesse Jackson back when precisely to try to skew the election and take down the Dem frontrunner in Florida. (I believe I’ve told this story before, but oh well. Telling it again.) One vote would make no impact, but this was apparently part of a big church-based movement. (Oh, right. Churches don’t get involved in politics because they’ll lose their tax-exempt status. Right.)
[...] the best-laid plans of lefty Kos and righty Matt Blunt (laid for rather different reasons, of course) went all gang aft a-gley. Word [...]