Partisanship

As long as I can remember, there were Democrats, Republicans, independents (with or without a capitol I) and lesser affiliates. It is no secret that the precept like father, like son does hold true today to some extent but possibly not like yesterday. So, I wanted to see what my computer says about “partisanship” since that term is used so frequently. Here is what Sir Toshiba [CTRL F7] came up with: partiality, inclination, disposition, tendency and impartiality (antonym).

So, not always trusting my senior moments, I went to good ol' Webster's 1200 page plus volume and looked up partial because inclination, disposition and tendency were easier to grasp. What I discovered was that synonyms for partial had two separate definitions. Since partial could mean fragmentary, imperfect, incomplete, that didn't fit the case. Probing further, I found affected, biased, discriminatory . . . I didn't probe any further.

Putting this together, two or more political parties should be at least somewhat partisan. But then, if political parties are partisan, and partisanship is an essential ingredient, I thought further that maybe it really was not a bad idea. We need politicians who look at things differently. And if they do have an inclination or tendency, that seems plausible. That I thought was the prime reason for two or more parties rather than one.

However, in looking more closely at any two dominant parties, I would expect they would be conciliatory, open to new ideas and other points of view. Unfortunately, that isn't always so. Rather, there is that secondary interpretation of partial and partiality that so often seems to differentiate this discussion. Disposition? Webster puts it this way: natural way of behaving toward others.

Disposition also is defined as adjustment, bent and bias. So partisanship then could be actually the result of an interpretation, a secondary and unwise choice giving credence to an antagonistic bias rather than a fair consideration of possible other points of view, a natural way of behaving toward others. Could that actually happen?

Any culture, nation or group that apparently listens less but insists more on its position is consciously or inadvertently upholding the lesser, inferior definition of partisanship to its detriment, straightaway or ultimately. Then, there is that increasingly less recognized bit of wisdom of the tendency of an ill-advised person critical of another who does have a small speck in his eye but yet refuses to recognize the greater flaw in his own.

Would it not be wiser if we would take the higher road of partisanship than trudge along on the rough trail of an inferior kind of partisanship? Is that asking too much? Or is it beyond comprehension?