On Tue Jan 09 2001, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Actually, it's interesting that no one ties the "politics of personal
> destruction" to the US's bizarre allergy to partisanship. If Senators
> could just stand up and say, you know, you're a nice human being but I
> disagree with your politics, then we wouldn't have this stupid dance
> where the only way to get rid of an ideological opponent is to find
> something sleazy about them.
This is an interesting idea, but I wonder about it on two counts. In the first place, our "allergy to partisanship" seems inscribed in our governmental arrangements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in parliamentary systems, where partisanship is generally much more clearly expressed, the opposition doesn't have any say in the appointment of the government's ministers. So they can denounce all they want. It's all for the gallery. But in our system, the opposition has real power to interfere, and the only thing that constrains them is the threat of retaliatory non-cooperation when they're in power. So nonpartisanship has at least some basis in institutionally molded, long-term, mutual self-interest.
The second count is Bork. Wasn't he opposed mainly on substantial grounds? But it was received with the same outrage as if it was about his sexual habits. Politicans might have switched to peccadillo hunting not because the substantial route isn't available, but because peccadillo hunting has proved itself to be more effective and harder to answer. Plus because it seems that once they've decided to go to the mat, they'll pay the same price no matter which method they use.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com