“Partisan Bickering” vs. Debating

     The liberal media and other commentators usually ascribe divisions within the United States Congress to “partisan bickering.” There is a big difference between bickering and arguing and especially between “partisan bickering” and debating, the latter of which is public discourse, either in a legislative body by representatives, or among the people.

     First of all, the divisions between legislators are usually ideological, not “partisan.” Even if there are narrow partisan interests involved, these are secondary to the underlying ideological principles that attract people to political parties in the first place. In other words, partisanship is a usually a facet of ideology, especially nowadays when the parties are less run by political patronage machines than by people who believe certain principles of government. 

     Second, to accuse someone of “bickering” is to imply that he is being vituperative (i.e. unnecessarily argumentative) or petty (i.e. arguing about minor matters). It is misleading to describe major differences of opinion on serious issues expressed in public discourse, whether by elected officials or private citizens, as “bickering,” as the expression of such differences are seldom examples of being vituperative or petty. Legislators express their ideological disagreements about important matters because of the importance of the matter being debated and their personal conviction in their principles. Indeed, it is important to note that many bills pass unanimously without any controversy. With a few notable exceptions, it is their disagreements that tend to make the news.

     It is also noteworthy that often legislators’ differences of opinion are expressed civilly toward each other, regardless of how passionate they might express their opinions about the issue. Indeed, individual legislators may be working in opposition on one matter while working with one another on another matter. Therefore, they have an incentive to avoid unnecessary or overly personal argumentation, which is hardly characteristic of bickering, despite such characterization by the liberal media of even the most civil debates. 

     The reason the media describe legislative differences of opinion as “partisan bickering” is itself a reflection of the liberal media’s ideological bias. The media believes that conservatives are wrong and that they should not, therefore, express opposition to liberalism. Expressing conservatism, the liberal media believes, cannot possibly be because of reasonable thinking, but because of partisanship or some personality fault (such as vituperativeness or pettiness); even being ideological is derided as a fault, if the ideology is one they oppose. Thus, to refer to legislative differences of opinion as “bickering” and especially as “partisan bickering” is to dismiss the validity of arguments by conservatives by essentially making an ad hominem argument. In other words, it is the liberal media’s way of trying to intimidate all conservatives from engaging in public discourse at all, let alone to advance their arguments and initiatives in a legislature, because even though the term “partisan bickering” appears to apply objectively to both sides, it really applies strictly to the expression of conservative principles.

*      *      *

     I write with personal experience as a former elected official who sat on a legislative/executive body that approved most resolutions unanimously, but generated the most media attention with a handful of issues of that produced sharp ideological division. In one instance, a Democratic member made a conservative suggestion in a committee, to which no one objected. When it came before the full body for consideration, however, some of the liberal members opposed the suggestion. Although there was overwhelming public support for our conservative position, some liberals in the media and elsewhere accused the body of spending too much time debating a matter they dismissed as insignificant (i.e. petty) because it was mostly “symbolic.” Yet it was not we, but the liberals who took up the body’s time arguing about it at all. Although relatively little time, in fact, was actually spent debating the matter (with most of it taken up by the liberals), the point is that no time would have been spent on it whatsoever had the other side agreed with us in the first place. But although it was the liberals who were spending the time on the matter, we were blamed by liberal commentators for wasting the body’s time. In other words, to the liberal media, a debate is something blameworthy – and only one side’s fault, at that, the conservative side. I note a contradiction as the matter must not have been as insignificant as the liberals claimed it was or else they would not have objected to our position as vociferously as they did and it would not have attracted as much media interest in it as it did.

     Thus, the incident revealed that liberals in office and in the media do not consider it appropriate that any time be spent considering the reasonable arguments of conservatives because they cannot conceive of any reasonableness of conservative arguments. Thus, they imply that we conservatives are being petty simply by expressing our opinions in public office, regardless of which side is the one actually taking up the time with its arguments, for only liberalism must advance, as all else they consider an obstacle to “progress.” The incident also revealed how liberals are intolerant of other opinions and generally believe they must resort to hominem arguments, like accusing people of “partisan bickering,” to advance their cause.