I’m a partisan and I’m OK
To be sung to the tune of Monty Python’s “I’m a Lumberjack”
I’m a partisan and I’m OK,
I fib all night and I lie all day.I play with stats, I misquote foes,
I make stuff up from scratch.
And when I am discovered,
I brew a brand new batchI deal in smoke and mirrors,
and bury truth in fogs.
I wear the party colours,
and hang around in blogs.My leader’s right and that’s a fact,
The Party Line is Gold,
Thinking’s not an option, I
Believe what I am told.My party’s all that matters,
The truth can take a hike.
As long as we gain power,
What IS there not to like?
(For the six people on the planet who don’t know the tune you’ll find the video at the end of this post)
It seems I struck a bit of a nerve with a partisan blogger in a discussion that started at Jacks Newswatch a couple of days ago where I called the post author on a comment that read (in part)
Thanks everyone. Great debate. Keep your eyes and ears open and as soon as someone says an untruth, such as the fact that the Conservatives did not win the majority of the popular vote.
(emphasis mine)
– in a discussion where the original post was titled Rewriting history to favour coalition no less.
As we are all aware the Conservative Party of Canada did increase it’s share of the popular vote to 37.63%. That is definitely the largest single share of the popular vote, but it is not a “the majority of the popular vote” by any stretch – just who is doing the rewriting of history here anyway?
Personally I blame the political mess Canada finds itself in these days on the knowingly, and willfully, planned disinformation and misinformation campaigns mounted by the leaders of all of the political parties, the individual elected MP’s of all the political parties, the partisan pretend journalists of our day, and hyper-partisanship of all of the followers and disciples of the afore mentioned… and I said so as part of the discussion.
It seems that reasoned debate or discussion has, for the most part, departed the Canadian political scene and left us with only empty party rhetoric in the quest for sound bites and blog hits – where it now lives is a mystery, but we really should make some sort of concerted effort to find it before more damage is done than has already been accomplished.
We’ve got the Liberals and the NDP (and their hyper-partisan disciples) telling Canadians that the Prime Minister somehow did something completely and utterly undemocratic by asking the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Is Harper the first PM to prorogue Parliament? Is he the first to try and avoid confidence votes? Did anything illegal take place? Did anything actually undemocratic take place? Was he not perfectly within his right as Prime Minister to make such a request?
We’ve got the Conservatives (and their hyper-partisan disciples) telling Canadians about an “unelected separatist coalition” – where is this unelected separatist coalition? Is it a coalition dedicated to separatism? Is the Bloc part of the coalition? Were not both leaders of the other two Opposition parties elected? Were not each of their MP’s elected? Is anything illegal happening? Is there a constitutional prohibition on coalition governments? Either before or after general election?
– and all the parties and their hyper-partisans yell about an “attack on democracy” – and it’s all bu||shit isn’t it?
There was a poll published late last year (December IIRC) that essentially told us that Canadians know pretty well squat about how either the their parliamentary or electoral systems work….. do you think that just maybe a large portion of the blame for that can be laid at the politically expedient hyper-partisan rhetoric spouted by the leaders of the political parties, and their disciples?
And make no mistake folks, the generation of tomorrow is learning from today so it’s only gonna get worse if this sh*t continues.
So Sandy, to address the question of
So, why is it negative to be seen as partisan, as in “devoted to or biased in support of a party, group or cause?” Particularly since under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have the right to free speech, political affiliation and the right to vote.
It is negative to be a partisan who goes beyond simple bias and/or devotion in their support for a party, group, or cause, by actively and knowingly participating in dis/mis-information campaigns in support of that party, group, or cause. It is negative to be a partisan who goes beyond simple bias and/or devotion in their support for a party, group, or cause, by believing that party power is paramount to other reasonable considerations (see near-fanaticism).
Now let me ask you a question Sandy – does being partisan mean that it is acceptable for politicians, political parties, or their membership, or their followers, to willingly and knowingly engage in dis/mis-information campaigns in the pursuit of political gain or power?
It’s a simple question that only requires a yes or no answer so there’s lots of space in the comments for ya.
And here’s the video I mentioned at the top of the post
Shorter Sandy: As long as it’s Big Daddy “engaging in dis/mis-information campaigns in the pursuit of political gain or power”, then yes. After all, he’s the dreamiest evah!1!!!1!!1!11!11!
You’re welcome, I’m sure.
I believe this may be the study you are refering to.
http://www.dominion.ca/release15122008.pdf
And ultimatly, wether or not a democracy functions is dependant on it’s citizens. If they’re complacent, lazy or plain old just don’t give a shit, politicians keep getting away with their shenanigans.
Stageleft — I came to respond but given the reaction to the mention of my name, I don’t think I’ll bother. Funny, I really got the impression at JN that you really wanted to debate rather than ridicule. Too bad. I came by actually to get your URL to put you on my “Favourites” list. Will still do so.
Speaking of partisanship, we have people divided and subdivided into party affiliations and allegiances. Sure, you at stageleft aren’t endorsing a specific party. Hard to do so when you’re advocating some kind of 19-year old nihilistic vision of not voting and calling yourself an anarchist.
What about all the incessant progressive bullshit one hears from the left every single day? Nonsense about allowing muezzins to scream Arabic in our cities, or how we should allow Canada to be transformed by whoever shows up tomorrow in large numbers? Isn’t that also a form of partisanship? Isn’t everything that’s said these days from “the left” a kind of group think, a kind of conformity to the collective idea that everything thought of before 1966 was nonsense, because you all know better now, and my grandparents were racists because they were white?
As I said, Galloping Beaver isn’t partisan, but they fit the progressive “party” to a T.
Show me a political blogger who doesn’t have someone who likes to ridicule them and I’ll show you a pretty rare political blogger Sandy. It’s why we develop thick skins and personal filters, I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve discussed something with someone on a blog while all around us minor stuff like that went on….. it’s one of those things that goes with the territory,
“Nonsense about allowing muezzins to scream Arabic in our cities…”
Some readers may be confused by this reference, Raphael.
Back when I still took Raph seriously and occasionally posted at his site, he got upset because of the potential construction of a mosque in some community somewhere…Manchester, perhaps? Raved on and on about shrieking muezzins and how much he hated the sound of them.
Can’t remember the details, but my basic point was:
– no accounting for tastes
- it should be put to a community plebiscite if there’s a real issue
- there is no restriction in Islamabad or Istanbul on the sounding of Christian churchbells.
This he interpreted as my capitulation to the hordes of Islamist blahblahblah…you get the picture. At that point I realized he was not a blogger to be taken seriously, and we cut him from our blogroll. There are lots of folks we disagree with, heatedly – but if they’re on the blogroll, it’s because we respect them.
Raph likes to play the thoughful, reasonable moderate – it’s fun, and very easy, to strip away that veneer.
Please sir…. what is a muezzins?
And didn’t I (politely even) ask you never to mention church bells again b? I still have nightmares about that bunch of Dominican Monks and their damned bell @ Fairmont and Wellington for petes sake — now I’m gonna be afraid to go to sleep tonight.
[...] like a person who is unthinking, unable to distinguish between the truth and party propaganda. As stageleft interprets it: It is negative to be a partisan who goes beyond simple bias and/or devotion in their support for a [...]
to willingly and knowingly engage in dis/mis-information campaigns
Down on the farm, we call that “lying” SL.
I think you should add one more thing to your definition as well – showing up to state that you won’t actually participate in the discussion because of some perceived slight is often the mark of a hyper partisan as well.
Sandy,
If you are truly interested in responding and having an honest debate, you would ignore any “ridicule” and properly plead your case. Unless you don’t have one and are actually looking for an excuse – any excuse – to NOT answer.
I, like SL, am very interested in how you can justify the type of partisan behaviour he describes. Especially when it is often the same behaviour you deride your opponents for doing.
Shouldn’t principles be more important than winning?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muezzins
Main Entry:
mu·ez·zin
Pronunciation:
\mü-ˈe-zən, myü-; ˈmwe-zən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
ultimately from Arabic mu’adhdhin
Date:
1585
: a Muslim crier who calls the hour of daily prayers
Cheers,
lance
@Sandy – Even shorter Sandy: Humph. Pardon my flounce.
Life, and to a rather large extent blogging, can be hard, cupcake … perhaps you should consider a helmet.
SL: “It is negative to be a partisan who goes beyond simple bias and/or devotion in their support for a party, group, or cause, by actively and knowingly participating in dis/mis-information campaigns in support of that party, group, or cause. It is negative to be a partisan who goes beyond simple bias and/or devotion in their support for a party, group, or cause, by believing that party power is paramount to other reasonable considerations (see near-fanaticism).”
I would argue that stageleft.info’s general hate for PMSH falls into your definition of partisanship (or anti-a-particular-party-partisanship vs supporting one particular party).
That being said, I would hope that I, as a CPoC supporter, have made it clear that while the CPoC gets my vote, at this point in time, I do not support-without-a-question all of their policies or all decisions of the PM, and reserve my right to dissent when the mood (or policy or decision) strikes me.
Do I support the CPoC over all other existing political parties in Canada? At this point, absolutely.
Will I willingly & knowingly disseminate false information in support of the CPoC? No.
“I would argue that stageleft.info’s general hate for PMSH falls into your definition of partisanship (or anti-a-particular-party-partisanship vs supporting one particular party).”
Stageleft.info doesn’t hate anyone, as far as I know, so let’s chill on the Scentinel-style vocabulary for a start.
I disapprove of more Conservative party policies than other parties: I tend to write more about what I DON’T like than what I DO like: and the Conservatives have formed either the government or the official opposition for my entire blogging career. It’s not surprising that they bear the brunt of criticism from Stageleft.
You can redefine “partisan” any way you like, like Humpty Dumpty.
@Candace –
Do I support the CPoC over all other existing political parties in Canada? At this point, absolutely.
Will I willingly & knowingly disseminate false information in support of the CPoC? No.
I would say that doesn’t make you a partisan then, in my opinion. Personally, though we may disagree, I have at least found you to be one of the few remaining “principled conservatives” out there.
What SL is getting at are those who willing lie, misinform, disseminate lies and misinformation and twist and spin the facts in order for their team to “win” are the partisans.
And this applies not just to the CPoC but to many Liberal bloggers as well – Jason Cherniak jumps to mind. A few Dipper can be counted on (Buckdog’s attacks on Elizebeth May before the debate are an example) as well. It does seem to me that since gaining power in 2006, there are many, many more CPoC supporters and bloggers who have taken the hyper-partisan line, than others.
SL is asking Sandy because she has been active in the miss/disinformation campaign with her dubious list of “accomplishments” and her rank admission detailed in the body of the post.
FWIW, Balb and I both live in Pierre Poilievre’s riding, so we are fed a nearly daily does of putrid stinking partisan tripe so we get a bit sensitive to it and weary of it.
SL:
Show me a political blogger who doesn’t have someone who likes to ridicule them and I’ll show you a pretty rare political blogger Sandy
I’m not sure how relevant this is to the debate here, but I think it’s my duty to point out that I’m universally loved and revered by everyone on all sides of the political spectrum. Probably because I’m so witty and handsome.
@Olaf – You forgot self-deprecating.
Personally, though we may disagree, I have at least found you to be one of the few remaining “principled conservatives” out there.
High praise indeed. Candace, maybe some day Spielberg will make a movie about you called “Candace’s List”. I expect it would paint you as a big-hearted, compassionate type who only occasionally indulges in itty-bitty, inconsequential stretches of the truth rather than the black whoppers the rest of us Cons are addicted to.
I am wounded, WOUNDED I tell you – there is no hate for PMSH in the bunker. There is a lot of criticism and ridicule, that goes with the territory of being the leading political leader of the country who has proven himself very much like but as I sure you know there have also been a few pats on the back when he deserved them.
That makes you partisan but not hyper-partisan – I fear there are few of you in the blogosphere.
I’m just here to back Olaf up. Although by doing so, those who hate me, will probably now hate Olaf by association. Sorry Olaf for liking you.
It’s a fruitless endeavour to wish for less partisanship. We always seem to have this ridiculous idea that there is more partisanship than ever, when really there’s just as much as there has always been.
The reason why the political blogosphere was so much better in the early days was because it was fore-mostly the most intelligent and passionate people who showed up first. The allure of open-ended discussion and a chance to challenge ourselves gave us that extra motivation to venture into the Wild West.
Then it became fashionable. And the Wild West became Las Vegas.
The important part is that human beings have this funny thing about needing to belong to a group. Some belong to groups representative of their ethnicity, race, political position, hobbies, interests, etc.
You see the same pattern of partisanship in sports (Leaf’s fans, Senator’s fans), in computing (Linux fans, Windows fans, Mac fans).
We do it with ethnicity too, unfortunately. It’s often tied to something else, like sports.
Sure. Partisans are dishonest. But they don’t mean to be, really. Most of the time they believe what they’re spewing. They have to. It’s a psychological defence mechanism — it lets them sleep at night.
There’s very little you can do about it, honestly. The intelligent, objective people, sometimes need to play the game too. Partisanship, the soundbite culture, short public attention spans, media more interested in scandal and exaggeration than real issues… is really all par for the course.
If all the intelligent, objective people… stopped playing “the game”… the world would collapse on itself. So all you can do is make peace with the world. That’s Just the Way it is(tm).
“So all you can do is make peace with the world. That’s Just the Way it is(tm).”
No doubt. And I don’t think anyone is calling for, or expecting, an end to partisanship. But it’s useful to know when you hear a position defended that the proponent is advancing that view because it echoes a party line, and not because they arrived at that view through their own critical thinking.
Those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive: people who declare a party affiliation presumably do so because they find their own values reflected in that party, and thus they’ll agree with, promote and defend most of what that party does.
I won’t ever be a partisan. I have some strong views on what Canada should be like in many areas, and I work in a lot of ways to make it so: in my job (to the extent I can), as a volunteer in the community, and once every few years, by voting (which is certainly the least effective level of political participation). But I cannot even begin to conceive of a “party” that I’d agree with all the time. As it stands, I agree with the Conservatives on opening up the broadcast market to competitive services like Fox News, and disagree with their contempt for public broadcasting. I agree with the Liberals on their support for the Kelowna accord, and despise their history of backtracking on prior commitments to Aboriginal people. I agree with the NDP support for Labour movement, and think their statements on firearms controls are absurd.
I used to say that I could see myself voting for any party except the Conservatives. Even that’s not true anymore: in the last election, had I lived in a particular riding I track closely, I would have voted for the Conservative candidate.
“I used to say that I could see myself voting for any party except the Conservatives. Even that’s not true anymore: in the last election, had I lived in a particular riding I track closely, I would have voted for the Conservative candidate. “
Same here. It gets a lot easier for me to vote Conservative if I just shift my house a few hundred metres to the north.
It would have to be one heck of a Conservative MP for me to even consider voting for him/her. The fact that their voice would be essentially worthless in their party would be a strong disincentive. Perhaps if they hinted they’d cross the floor if the party crossed them…
Whooee! As yer aware, I wave the banner fer the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May and the Greenies. I’m on my local riding association executive, so I reckon I’m definitely a card-carryin’ partisan.
I take some exception to yer statement above. I know you qualified it some but I ain’t sure you hit the nail on the head. Like yer sayin’, people join parties because they feel the party reflects their thinking. I don’t know about you but I ain’t got time to think about everything. Already, it’s “Think, think, think. That’s all I do.” If I had to come up with all the ideas and concepts and proposals laid out in the Green Party policy book, I’d be dang worn out in the brain department.
I can spout (echo) GPC policy in good conscience because I won’t spout unless I understand and agree with it. I don’t spout it because it echos the party line but because I agree with what the party proposes. The party has spent time and energy researching an issue and coming up with a proposed solution or set of solutions.
It ain’t a case of “the party says it so I have to agree.” I don’t think anyone can be in full agreement with every point of every policy of a party. If that were required, nobody would vote or support any party. (I know, some people think that would be just fine.)
JB
“Even that’s not true anymore: in the last election, had I lived in a particular riding I track closely, I would have voted for the Conservative candidate. ”
Well Balb, its all relative – you live in Poilievre’s riding so the Cons running a one-eyed drooling monkey in another riding would look good by comparison.
“you live in Poilievre’s riding so the Cons running a one-eyed drooling monkey in another riding would look good by comparison”
If I lived in his riding, I would quite possibly stay home on voting day, or do like I did the last election, hold my nose & vote while volunteering for a CPoC guy I actually like. Actually, no, if I lived in Poilievre’s riding, I’d volunteer for someone else on voting day as a scrutineer and lie, if asked, about voting early.
I really do not like that guy.
@ Balb: “Stageleft.info doesn’t hate anyone, as far as I know, so let’s chill on the Scentinel-style vocabulary for a start. ”
see below
@StageLeft “I am wounded, WOUNDED I tell you – there is no hate for PMSH in the bunker.”
Well, then, I’m guessing you & Balb must be female, ’cause you sure know how to fake it.
Case in point – First Nations issues. Is there ANYTHING the current gov’t has done that you like? The apology doesn’t count (see latest post here) because nothing – to your liking – has followed (that I’ve seen posted about, anyway).
Well, here in AB, things ARE happening on the First Nations front. How do I, a non-First Nations person know this? Because the company I work for has been hired by the AB & fed gov’ts to do some positive things for First Nations groups around the city I live in. Maybe those things aren’t happening in Ontario, for whatever reason, or maybe they are and you just haven’t heard about it, or maybe they are and they don’t meet your criteria for “good” things happening. Whatever the case may be, you (StageLeft posters) and I are seeing opposite sides of a coin here. That’s okay. After all, we are on different sides (or regions) of the country and in different provinces. The likelihood of exact duplication is, I’m guessing, not real high.
Maybe my partisanship – mild, mellow or moderate on a good day and not so mild, mellow or moderate on others – makes me over-react to your criticisms (as perceived by you, attacks as perceived by me). Maybe your criticisms are sometimes over the top. Whatever. It’s your blog, after all. I choose to read it because I like to. When your post pi$$es me off, I choose whether to post a response or not, depending on whether I feel like stirring it up. I’m sure you do the same at my blog.
@ Mike Brock: “The reason why the political blogosphere was so much better in the early days was because it was fore-mostly the most intelligent and passionate people who showed up first. The allure of open-ended discussion and a chance to challenge ourselves gave us that extra motivation to venture into the Wild West.
Then it became fashionable. And the Wild West became Las Vegas. ”
Well. I’m not sure, but I think since I only started blogging a bit over 2 years ago, I’ve just been relegated as a not-so-intelligent blogger. Raspberries to you. And whatever happened to “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”?
Candace: Ah, I see. For you, the word “hate” is a synonym for “disagree with the policies of his government”. Out here in the East (or perhaps it’s just among us non-partisans) it means something quite different. I’ve hated a couple of people in my life: none of them have been politicians.
As for Harper’s Aboriginal initiatives: I have no idea which programs or policies you’re talking about, of the degree to which they are originally Conservative initiatives (as opposed to the outputs or outcomes of programs established by prior governments), or their actual impact. Most of the funding currently invested for training, job creation or economic development flows from the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Strategy, a Liberal initiative. By all means provide additional information: don’t just tell you know a bunch of stuff that would prove how wrong I am.
You will recall shortly after the election of the first Conservative minority, I predicted that any iniatives announced or funded would be consonant with the assimilation strategy: in other words, that they would promote urbanization, transfer of responsibility for Aboriginal affairs to provincial governments (especially in the key areas of NATIONAL responsibility, like Health, Aboriginal education, and economic development) – and that “solutions” would focus on time limited expenditures with NO longer term policy solution in mind.
So go ahead. Dazzle me.
Candace,
Don’t mistake criticism of policy, or even strident criticism of policy, for hatred. I know what real hatred is like, and the two do not belong together.
I’m sure that Stephen Harper is a decent individual, certainly a loving father, and ultimately quite an intelligent individual. I find that his political actions over the last two years to be severely flawed. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t shake the man’s hand if he offered to me.
From Merriam-Webster –
1par·ti·san
Variant(s):
also par·ti·zan \ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌpär-tə-ˈzan\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partiźan, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
Date:
1555
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person ; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
The item I would like to point out is the word “faction” – for some of those of you I know (or know of), it is important to point out that you could very well be quite partisan, just not with Federal Political Parties.
Balbulican, James & others: “Ah, I see. For you, the word “hate” is a synonym for “disagree with the policies of his government”…” Actually, I used the word hate based on the level of vitriol used in a number of posts here about either Harper or his policies, and it is not always clear that the vitriol is directed at the policies, not the person. I’ll take you (SL et al) at your word, and based on discussions with James here and elsewhere, same to James.
“So go ahead. Dazzle me.” I’m not ignoring you, I’m just dealing with some heavy duty stuff on the homefront and have no energy for this right now. Maybe in a week or two I’ll post a response on my blog.