in praise of partisanship

I'll admit it - I'm an "issues voter". Further, I submit that, if you care about American politics, you are as well.

Issues voters get a bad rap these days, even from other issues voters in denial. These are the folks who like to talk about "pragmatism" and tend to hold forth at length about their own wisdom concerning "the realm of the possible". But the fact is that, except for those few for whom politics is purely about winning no matter the actual contestants, politics is about ideas, about issues.

I've realized a few things in six years at DU, among them the fact that "pragmatists" don't like to talk about issues at more than a surface level. I think they get in the way of the pragmatic point of view, the outlook that wants, at all costs, to smooth the way for superficial agreement and make everyone look happy. Check out the pronouncements of the Democratic Leadership Council some time. Outside of the occasional spitball that you'll find lobbed at the democratic left, you're liable to find nothing but underhands weakly tossed to a right wing drooling for more.

This is not what I'm looking for in a party. And look at y'all lining up already, just waiting for the opportunity to pounce, shrieking about purity and electibility. And you know what? Maybe I *am* looking for purity. You tell me.

I'm looking for a candidate who will provide great (not decent - great) health care for all Americans. I'm looking for a party that will support fair international trade that impoverishes neither Americans nor foreign workers. I'm looking for a candidate who will support public education, not just test children and punish teachers. I'm looking for a party that will actively promote the rights of *all* Americans, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender or race. I'm looking for a candidate who has a workable, progressive vision about how we move forward on the environment. I'm looking for a party that won't allow the invasion of sovereign nations which haven't attacked the US.

We put men on the moon when I was nine months old - none of what I've written above is outrageous in 2007. Compromise is a pretty word when your opponent wants to play along, but deadly when he has no intention of doing so. Will the Republicans call us partisan? Of course. Should we be? Absolutely.

Haven't seen one yet.

"I'm looking for a candidate who will provide great (not decent - great) health care for all Americans. I'm looking for a party that will support fair international trade that impoverishes neither Americans nor foreign workers. I'm looking for a candidate who will support public education, not just test children and punish teachers. I'm looking for a party that will actively promote the rights of *all* Americans, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender or race. I'm looking for a candidate who has a workable, progressive vision about how we move forward on the environment. I'm looking for a party that won't allow the invasion of sovereign nations which haven't attacked the US."

If everyone agreed that the Republicans will implement 0% of what we all want and therefore are worth keeping out of office, we could start talking about getting any percentage of progress. The splinterists in effect say, "if I don't get what I want but am not willing to build consensus on, then I will harm and/or everyone in America and in many other parts of the world as revenge". It is terrorism, and when violence enters the arena, and innocent people are being threatened by sociopaths, that is when I have to get my pimp hand strong.