11/17/00 1:45 p.m.
Partisanship
The good and the bad.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

hough the presidential candidates and their designated emissaries speak in terms of the Constitution and high-minded vision, the truth is that the current battle for the White House is very political. This is partisanship at its most raw.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Bipartisanship is presently considered the great ideal, but full, deep-throated, partisanship in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Fighting for a great governing principle that animates a political party is a worthy endeavor. The two greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were also two of the most partisan. Partisanship can become a bad thing when the stakes are not merely small, but the individuals battle over remarkably petty stakes and a culture of mistrust pervades all. The poisonous nature of recent debate in Washington had as much to do with the egocentric attitudes of the chief executive as they did with serious philosophical disputes.

In the current, historic struggle on display are examples of partisanship good and bad. One aspect of good partisanship is having all the troops deployed in a concerted manner to become echo chambers for the leaders' words. In the modern sense, that means this means various members of Congress filling up semi-important time slots on various cable stations and evening news broadcasts.

Meanwhile, each side partisanly accuses the other of — partisanship. Republicans criticize the local election commissions that are dominated by Democrats for having total control of the hand-count process. Democrats roar about the unfairness of Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris having the final say on the certification of the election. But the truth is, in a two-party system, most state offices will be occupied by an elected Democrat or Republican. Thus, there will always be charges of partisan motive.

But the current "crisis" has been instructive, not in giving civics lessons, but in assessing the various types of partisanship — good and bad, effective and less so. This is not to judge the moral claims of the Republican (American) or Democratic (socialist, double-dealing) arguments. That can be seen elsewhere. The question right now is whether partisan tactics are being used productively to further a given side's overall goal.

The current New Republic has a must-read article by Ryan Lizza on the Gore campaign machinations after Election night, mere hours after he retracted his concession. The Democrats immediately pivoted into recount mode, for which they had practiced for weeks prior. All hands were sent to Florida and the current situation was underway. No surprise, Robert Wexler was front and center with accusations of his constituents being disenfranchised. But, significantly, he was not behind a podium decrying the injustice of it all. He had real live people ashamed that they might have voted for Pat Buchanan. Was this staged? What do you think? The point is though, Wexler's ravings were given a human face.

In its own way, Tom Delay's circulating a memo to his fellow Republicans, explaining the prerogatives of the House when it comes to recognizing state electors was good old-fashioned partisanship. It was a fine shot against the bow of the Democrats suggesting what might happen if they manage to, win Florida in the courts and, by doing so (in the minds of many GOPers) "steal the election." Congressional Republicans can vote not to accept those electors. The House has its rights.

Contrast, meanwhile a press conference Thursday, GOP representatives Billy Tauzin (La.), Chris Cox (Calif.), Cliff Stearns (Fla.) announced that they would demand hearings on network bias during Election night. This is not the best way to make partisan attacks. Is it a worthwhile topic? Yes, considering that network early calls helped spark the current situation. However, does it help move the Republican message of the moment? Absolutely not. In fact, it may accidentally help the arguments of the other side.

For one thing, having a press conference like this in Washington, when all the eyes of the nation are in Florida makes the individuals in question look quite odd, out-of-touch even. Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the party of Washington? Robert Wexler, at least took the time to visit the people he represents. What's the topic of this news conference? Oh, bias. That's right — that's exactly what everyone in the country is concerned about right now — the bias of the news media. Here we have Republican chairmen of committees and they're bringing out their favorite bugaboo — media bias — and threatening hearings!

For Republicans, the media has become the equivalent of "The Man" — the '60s/'70s-era bogey man that was the "cause" of all black America's pain. It mattered little what a black person would do, The Man was there behind the scenes to tear him down. Nearly ten years ago, a younger Chris Rock on Saturday Night Live had a recurring skit hosting the eponymously-titled, "Nat X Show" — the only 15-minute talk show on the air. Why only fifteen minutes? "Because," declares the big Afro-ed revolutionary, "that's all 'The Man' will allow!" Consult Superfly or Shaft for further distillations on this academic topic.

Republicans can't get bills passed; it's The Media's fault. This time around, they can't elect a president. It's The Media's fault. Is there bias in the mainstream media? Sure, it exists. So does racism exist in society. But whining about the existence of either gets a little wearying — especially when the "victims" appear to be putting their personal interests ahead of the larger concerns of either their party or their country. Why did Jesse Jackson's act get tired so quickly in Florida this time around? He was seen as personally grandstanding. It was a type of partisanship that wasn't necessarily helpful to Al Gore — which is why all Democrats are supposed to be here.

In the context of partisan goals, Tauzin & Co. press conference actually helped, subconsciously, make one Democratic argument (no surprise considering we are playing on the "bias" field here) on the state of the election. The GOP complained that the networks calling Florida for Gore about ten minutes before the polls closed in the central time-zone of the panhandle caused some voters not to vote, both in the state and out west. The networks called Gore states quickly, but held back on Bush states — "a disturbing picture…of probable bias," Tauzin charged. Voters at the polls may have left the line once they heard the news Bush was losing. Great. Where were they? While Democrats are arguing people and votes, the Republicans are crying "system" and "process."

Of course, the media denied bias.

But what is one logical conclusion — besides having a congressional hearing — to the alleged "disenfranchisement" of untold panhandle citizens who couldn't vote because of the early network call? What would be a good remedy? Hmmm…how about we have a new statewide election? Oh, wait, that's what the Democrats want. Oops!!

See what happens when you start playing the victim game — especially when you don't produce any real life, affected individuals?

How about if all good partisans drop the distracting subplots and get back on the same page?