The fundamental fallacy which is committed by almost everyone is this: “A and B hate each other, therefore one is good and the other is bad.”
==Bertrand Russell, in 1956 letter
One of the big obstacles to rational discussion of politics is the notion that you’ve got to sign up for Team Red or Team Blue, and that on any given question, the criterion is which answer helps your team and which helps the other team.
Let me give a couple of examples.
I once argued with a Republican acquaintance about the need for filibuster reform in the Senate, so that bills and appointments could be approved by a 51-vote majority rather than a 60-vote super-majority. His rebuttal was that Democrats benefit from the filibuster as much as Republicans, and would favor the filibuster when they were no longer in the majority. This probably was true, but the question was not what is in the interests of the Democrat or Republicans, but in the interests of the USA.
A Democratic friend once said that it was a mistake to “fetishize” the Constitution, because that is what Tea Party Republicans do. As I see it, support for the Constitution is the basic social contract that binds the United States together as a nation. Without it, Americans are no more than a collection of contending ethnic groups or the world’s biggest mass market for advertisers. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but, if so, what Tea Party members do or don’t think has nothing to do with the case.
I disagree with Rep. Justin Amash, a Tea Party Republican from Michigan, on many issues, such as his role in the irresponsible government shutdown, but I think he is worthy of praise for co-sponsoring legislation to curb abuses of the National Security Agency.
I have been enrolled as a Democrat since I first registered to vote. I once thought there was an intrinsic difference between the two political parties. I agreed with the historian, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who wrote in The Age of Jackson that the Republican Party and its predecessors, the Whig Party and the Federal Party, represented the interests of Wall Street and big business, while the Democratic Party, going back to Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson, was a coalition of everyone who might be harmed by the abuse of business power. Schlesinger thus rationalized the fact that the Democratic coalition in the 1940s and 1950s included Southern white supremacists. The interests of the Southern planters were not the interests of Wall Street.
I see now that this is an oversimplified view of history. From the Civil War to the Great Depression, there were as many progressives in the Republican Party as in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was not merely the party of William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge; it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, George W. Norris and Fiorello LaGuardia.
And as political scientist Thomas Ferguson has pointed out, the Democratic Party is as much beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests as the Republican Party.
I agree with the Democrats more than the Republicans on most, although not all, issues on which the two parties differ. But I am much more concerned about political continuity and bipartisan agreement on questions such as propping up Wall Street, extrajudicial killing, preventive detention and warrant-less surveillance. , a consensus that seems to endure in Washington regardless of public opinion. And I am pleased when people from either side of the political aisle dissent from this consensus. If we Americans want a free, peaceful and prosperous country, we’ve got to get beyond limits of Blue vs. Red.
No political party is worthy of loyalty in and of itself. No political label is worthy of loyalty. The only things that are worthy of loyalty are certain principles and certain human beings. A political party, like a corporation or a union, is merely an organizational structure in which individual people can do certain things. But if the people are replaced, and their principles and purposes are lost, what is there left to be loyal to?