Partisan isn’t a four-letter word

It has become a lazy slur, an oft-employed pundit crutch – decrying the evils of partisanship, dismissing the opinion of partisans with one brush, and apportioning a large share of the blame for what supposedly ails our nation to the partisans. Well, let me take up that tarnished mantle and proclaim I am a partisan, and I strongly believe Canada needs more partisans, of all stripes.

As is often the case, it comes down to definitions. Like in any group, there are good and bad. There are good journalists and bad journalists. There are good bus drivers and bad bus drivers. And there are good partisans and bad partisans. The Interwebs have certainly made the bad ones more visible; they flood comment boards with talking points, troll nonsense on Twitter refusing to listen to reasonable debate or consider other views.

And you can certainly argue offline politics has become more negatively partisan, although the debate over why and how would be interesting and complex. For example, those who decry partisanship are quick to highlight anyone who deviates from a party line as disloyal, which only serves to cement the partisanship they claim to decry. But I digress.

To dismiss all partisans for the actions of a fringe element though would be, as I said earlier, a lazy slur. And counter-productive, as the cure to the kind of partisanship we all decry is an engaged and informed citizenzry. And that, my friends, is just another name for partisan.

We’ve all heard the numbers. Voter turnout is dwindling ever downward, particularly for youth. And only two per cent Canadians belong to political parties. Citizen engagement in our democracy is dangerously low, and citizen engagement is crucial to a vibrant democracy and good government.

What is a partisan? They’re someone who has bucked this trend of a checked-out citizenry. They’re someone who cares, and has engaged. They’re someone who follows the issues, and has decided to get involved to advocate for the issues they care about. They devote volunteer hours to policy workshops, in the hope their ideas could become policy, and one day law. They work to get candidates that share their views nominated, and then work to get them elected, spending hours stuffing envelopes, putting up signs, and going door to door trying to engage their fellow citizens in their democracy.

And most partisans I know freely admit that they don't have all the answers, that other positions have merit too, and that we should work together for common goals. What partisans, whatever their political allegiance, have in common is the desire to build a better country, and the commitment to actually roll up their sleeves and work hard to make it happen. 

Along with those that get involved with NGOs and other issue-based lobby groups, partisans are among some of the few engaged citizens we have. And to the extent that the system does work, to the extent that politicians and government do listen to the citizens, partisans are a big part of the reason why.

Let’s continue to call-out examples of negative partisanship when we see it, just like we call-out bad journalism. But let’s also call out for more citizens to engage in our democracy, to take an interest, to get to get involved and, yes, to become partisans.

And if some still insist that partisan is a four letter word, then let’s say fine. As long as that word is care.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We have, and need, more Jacks

As we begin to move forward now with Jack Layton's celebration of life behind us, and as we consider what his lasting legacy will be, I think it would be a disservice to his memory to gloss over his imperfections (he's a human being, we're all imperfect) and to pretend his example was a unique one. It was all too rare, but it's not unique, and if we're to honour his example we should recognize that.

As I wrote earlier, Jack was someone who entered politics for the right reasons. He wasn't immune to playing the political games, exploiting the wedge issues, and running the negative ads. That's a part of modern politics, as disquieting as that may be. And everyone faces an internal battle between their demons and their better angels. But in his journey through political life he tried to keep principle and pragmatism as his guide-posts, and be willing to work with anyone with whom he could forge common ground.

And in that, Jack was not unique. There are people like Jack in every party, and in every part of the country. To be sure, there are those that get into politics for the wrong reasons: the pursuit of power, or ego. And there are those that will use the ends to justify any means. These are the people that give politicians a bad name, and cause them to rank down with lawyers and journalists when it comes to public trust and respect. And they're also in all parties.

But there are also those that see public service as a higher calling, a noble sacrifice. They're willing to make the sacrifices inherent in public life – long hours, time away from family, lost earning potential, public scrutiny – because they believe public service is the obligation of a citizen and they want to see this country improved. They're in every party and, while they may disagree on the finer points of how to get there, they share the same noble motivations and the same end goals.

Given the low esteem we hold politicians in the country, the public outpouring of emotion we've seen this week has been impressive. Much of it has to do with Jack's positive and dynamic force of personality, but I think it's larger than that. I think it's the people embracing the idea that Jack has come to represent, in spirit if not always perfectly in practice: a different, more positive, cooperative type of politics. It's the citizenry sending a message that there is a better way.

I think the way forward is multifold. Politicians of all stripes should heed this message, and reconsider their ways. But I think the bigger challenge is for our citizens, and it's two-fold. First, recognize that there are more Jacks out there, and in every party. Seek them out and support them as they try to work in a system designed to stifle them; too many good people give up on public life, but we need them too much. Help them persevere. Second, be the change you want to see. Get involved, up to and including running yourself, in promoting the ideal of public service you would like to see.

It's easy to lament the state of modern political discourse, but it's also a cop-out. We get the kind of politics we demand; if we don't demand change ... if we don't make change, we'll never get it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Twitter important, say people on Twitter

Following a Power Play segment last week on Twitter, there's a The Hill Times piece today trumpeting the communications tool as "the next frontier" of politics.

Forgive me for lapsing into cantankerous old man mode, but I think the Twitter hype is getting ahead of itself.

Is it an important and useful communications tool? Absolutely. I get much of my news from Twitter, primarily as news organizations and people I follow share links to media coverage. (Note: like blogs, this is Twitter amplifying MSM coverage, not creating original journalism).

I also follow many journalists, politicians, politicos and others. It provides an interesting perspective into the behind the scenes, the personalizing superficial (I mean that in a good, humanizing way), and an opportunity to interact. I've debated coverage with journalists, and policy with cabinet ministers. I like to think the debate improves us all.

I agree when the article says Twitter has the potential to influence the tenor of media coverage, and from there the public. It's the same blogs, influential by degrees of separation. But I wouldn't go further than that.

I was amused by the subhead on the The Hill Times article: Twitter could determine electability and influence next federal campaign, say leading political twitterers. That about sums it up. People on Twitter say Twitter is important. Let's not forget that 95 per cent of the population has no idea what Twitter is.

Also, it's important to look at your audience. I currently have 1,233 followers on Twitter. They're made up primarily of fellow Liberal partisans, partisans of other assorted stripes, Ottawa watchers, hill journos, and some politicians. I could probably count the number of undecided voters following me on one hand. So I can tweet for the Liberal cause until I'm blue in the face; I'm not changing anyone's mind.

It's the selection-bias of Twitter that limits its utility. This example from the article is meant to argue for Twitter, but really it confirms its limitations:

Ms. O'Malley, who has 6,271 followers on Twitter, said she started following hashtags and local media in the ridings affected by this past November's byelections.

"It really did help inform me. I'm not in Winnipeg North; I'm not even in friggin' Vaughan. It gave me the ability to see what all sides were saying....Imagine that [multiplied by] 308," she said.

The national media did very little actual on the ground reporting in last fall's by-elections. Instead, they covered them from Ottawa. Instead of going into the communities and talking to voters, stopping in at all candidates meetings, or visiting campaign offices to gauge volunteer support, they relied on the partisan spin they got from each camp, which is usually pretty divorced from reality. And the spin war was certainly active on Twitter.

Having relied on that picture, there was much Ottawa media shock when Julian Fantino barely won in Vaughan instead of the expected landslide, or Kevin Lamoureux scored a surprise victory in Winnipeg. Because they weren't getting an accurate picture from Twitter or (naturally) the spinners.

Point being, Twitter is neither a substitute for on the ground reporting, nor for on the ground campaigning. It is a tool among many, but it's just a tool. It's another channel to get the message out, and in an ever-fracturing communications world we need to leverage all the channels we can. There is great potential in social networking, and turning people into advocates within their personal networks.

Elections, however, are still fought and won (or lost) on the doorstep. Not by retweets.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who's more emasculated, the media or parliamentarians?

I follow lots of parliamentarians, policios and political media on twitter, and it's amusing sometimes to watch some of the discussions and debate that goes back and forth. Take last night. I was treated to a bevy of snarky tweets back and forth, and the topic can be summed up thusly: whose is smaller?

On the one side, you had the media types snickering at the politicos for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for not standing up for the righteous principle of parliamentary supremacy, for letting the PMO (multiple historical PMOs, they say) neuter MPs and render them virtual nobodies, even on Parliament Hill.

And on the other side, you had the political types snickering at the media types for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for submitting to question lists controlled by the PMO at their infrequent news conferences, for attending every photo-op and statement-only event where they can't ask questions but just duly transcribe the talking points, for standing meekly by while the government restricts access to ministers and civil servants, and using their rare opportunities to question the PM for lame softballs.

It was rather amusing to watch. Who is more emasculated? You are! No, you are! Nuh uhh, you are!

A few points.

One: You're all emasculated and slightly pathetic, so maybe work on that before you call out others for faults you share. You all doth protest too muchly.

Two: You wonder why Canadians are generally tuned-out of the political debate? Because you've rendered yourselves irrelevant with dumb-ass debates like this instead of doing your respective jobs.

Both sides in this debate are right. And both sides are lame.

UPDATED TO ADD: While both sides are right in that the other side is emasculated and lame, they should also each acknowledge that it's not as easy as they'd like to us to think it is for the other side. On the politico side, there's the risk of triggering an election to factor in. And the party whip. On the media side, the risk is loss of access and being "beaten" by competition that don't take a moral stand. Not that these are excuses we should accept. It's just not as black and white as each likes to think it is for the other side.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers