Politics versus partisanship
a thought for the days ahead
I realize my observation today will not suffice in covering a controversial topic but I have a suggestion for all of us as we move forward to next week. It’s hardly shocking to say we are likely in for a bruising atmosphere none of us has ever experienced as the last time it enveloped us was in the 1860s when we lost thousands of lives in a bitter civil war.
My observation is that we need be a bit more careful about our language when we discuss politics versus partisanship. This comes to mind in reading a New York Times headline saying that Ms. Pam Bondi, the nominee for Attorney General, says she supports President-elect Trump (as anyone would expect one of his nominees to do) but will not pursue “political inquiries”.
Let me start by lauding that sentiment, particularly for the Attorney General. The position for which they held her confirmation hearing today is one position of incredible power that can make or break an administration’s commitment to constitutional rule (ask John Mitchell who spent time in jail after pursuing Richard Nixon’s enemies in a partisan manner) any single one of the 340 million American lives.
I pray absolutely NO Attorney General would ever again engage in “political inquiries” as Mitchell did. Rule of law means application of norms of behavior for everyone from Rosa, a U.S. citizen who cleans bathrooms, to Horace, a Queens-born business tycoon. If you break the law, then you suffer the consequences no matter who you are.
But we keep hearing that this or that decision is political.
But too often we are in the habit of forget the term political has six different meanings according to Dictionary.com:
Of, or related to, or concerned with politics?
Of, related to, or connected with a political party?
Exercising or seeking power in relation to government or public affairs at the state, local or federal level?
Of, or relating to, the state and its government?
Having a definite policy or system or government?
Of, or relating to, citizens?
I would suggest we vastly over use the term “political” because we increasingly use it to accuse someone of the second question.
Could we perhaps try using partisan when we actually mean “an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance”? We are conflating partisan with political much of the time but they are not precisely the same.
Not every thing that is political (of government, the state or a party) is partisan but when we like someone’s choices or policies, we tend to assume the person is not invoking politics. We tend to criticize our “opponents” by labeling their motives and actions as political while we actually mean partisan. If you look at the past decade, for example, a plethora of instances occurred where someone under investigation for a legal missteps claims that the investigators are politically-motivated when the individual really is claiming what is being done to him is partisan. By claiming politics, that is supposed to erase possible culpability.
Of course it’s possible that partisanship can sadly be invoked. But the vast majority of cases have not been partisan or political in that sense. But what words we use matters, however, because by being imprecise, we muddle every single action—justifying and invalidating everything at the same time. And we cast aspirations on so many people.
Anyone protecting the rule of law or the institutions of government is political according to the dictionary definition above. But we have morphed using political as if everything falls under that a category, nullifying any responsibility because “it’s just politics at work”. No, that is not true. Not everyone embraces politics as the justification for ignoring law because “everyone does it”. Ov vey, not true. But let’s be clearer with our language as a start.
Our complicated, messy, and conflictual use of language is crucial as we have both a government and a political party administering it between each and every election. If someone takes an appointed position, it’s our tradition that the individual (in ANY and EVERY cabinet post) is a public servant for the entire country rather than the individual’s party of preference. I would hope that was her intention but our society has become so polarized that many adherents of both political parties arrogate themselves as the sole legitimate arbitrators of our institutions because of this question. Is someone labelling an action as “political” using common definition or something else?
The levers of government are powerful under either or both parties so these questions matter to all Americans.
Just a thought. Any Attorney General needs be non-partisan to be effective as the chief administrator of law enforcement in this nation, whether Pam Bondi, Merrick Garland, and will be true for any other AG. My focus is to recognize how we are too often unclear with our highly-charged use of language. The headline triggered me to recall that we throw that word around with almost wreckless abandon these days which I urge all of us to stop doing.
I welcome your thoughts on this question as we see a new administration begin. I look forward to conversation as perhaps I am misinterpreting the words I read; I get things wrong like anyone else.
Thank you for your time today or any other day. I welcome you reading the columns. I greatly appreciate those of you who are paid subscribers. For less than a dollar a week one can become an annual paid subscriber.
Be well and be safe. FIN
“Partisan”, in dictionary.com, retrieved at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/partisan
“Political”, dictionary.com, retrieved at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/political
Glenn Thrush, Devlin Barrett and Adam Goldman, “Bondi, Declaring Loyalty to Trump, Vows no Political Inquiries”, NewYorkTimes.com, 15 January 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/us/politics/pam-bondi-trump-confirmation.html
I couldn't agree more! How refreshing would it be for public servants to be non-partisan? Will we see it in our lifetimes? Some quick research into partisanship yielded an interesting article from the Pew Research Center (2016). In one chapter of the article: "The Roots of Partisanship" one paragraph that stuck out to me was this:
"More than half of Republican leaners (55%) and 51% of Democratic leaners say harm from the opposing party’s policies are a major reason for leaning to their party. No other factor comes close – just 30% of Republican leaners and 34% of Democratic leaners cite the positive effects from their preferred party’s policies as a major reason."
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/2-the-roots-of-partisanship/
Emotions run deep in these discussions. People are entrenched in their fundamental beliefs and core values and it's hard to sway them...even when, at times, they're presented with undisputable facts that their view / belief is wrong.
And while on the topic of cabinet post nominations and confirmation hearings, watching the lack of civility and decorum across both political parties was really disheartening...but unfortunately not unexpected.
In 2021, A bill was introduced to the House (H.R. 549) entitled: STOP Bullying Act. The bill was intended to: "...amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grant program that will support efforts at the State level to establish anti-bullying task forces to study, address, and reduce bullying in elementary and secondary schools, for for other purposes." Sadly, it appears it never made it out of Committee.
After watching the confirmation hearings over the past few days, Congress may want to consider a similar Bill which would apply to both parties across Congress. It's clear that it's more important to Senators to get their points "on the record" vs. actually engaging in meaningful dialog. These elected officials are representatives of We The People which includes cabinet nominees and anyone else summoned to provide testimony. "WE" should be treated with the same decency and respect that all of them demand.
Spot on Cynthia. “Words matter.” On a related note, and one that I find annoying, being a Democrat does not mean you are a liberal as also, being a Republican does not mean you are solely a conservative. One is a political party the other a social and political philosophy (words matter). Best as always!