Posted on 03/16/2008 5:39:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Geraldine Ferraro’s impolitic commentary regarding Barack Obama has been widely covered and discussed. But in the rush to examine the really juicy part of her monologue, you know – the stuff about race – something else the 72 year old former congresswoman said is being lost.
Toward the end of her recent, now infamous, interview, one that has apparently cost her that highly coveted role of “Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair”, the woman who broke political ice twenty-four years ago as the Democratic nominee for Vice President, talked about the big bad wolf of PARTISANSHIP.
I’m referring to the part of Ms. Ferraro’s remarks where she challenged the notion that Mr. Obama is some kind of mythical superhero, who is going to change the rarified air inside the Capital Beltway. Here’s what she said:
“I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship…Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship – that’s the way our country is.”
Her point is being largely overshadowed by the other stuff she said. But it’s infinitely more important because it highlights the real elephant in the room affiliated with the Obama campaign; one that doesn’t have anything to do with the color of his skin, or even the content of his character. It has to do with the extremely unrealistic hopes some people are placing on him and his candidacy. Sadly, many are setting themselves up for a painful trip to disillusion land, because the hope is really nothing more than hype. Political business as usual is not going to change in America, no matter who is elected.
Partisanship is here to stay.
Is partisanship a bad thing? Would we really be better off if every American agreed with every other American about everything? Certainly, most of us grow weary of the politics of destruction and personal attack. But if there is a hunger in this country for some political messiah to come and rescue us from partisanship, then I suggest the nation get in touch with its heritage and see how beneficial constructive, and sometimes even acrimonious, debate has been for our Republic.
When our nation was young and struggling to find its way, charting new ground, and organizing a system of government unprecedented in human history, it wasn’t without a large measure of partisanship.
And we should all be thankful for that.
Consider the tale of two Georges. They were friends and neighbors. Both were founders of our country. Both loved the young nation very much. But they disagreed, and this dispute became so pronounced that their friendship ended.
George Washington and George Mason agreed about a lot. They were on the same page in 1776 when we were declaring our independence from the British crown. They were comrades and patriots during the Revolutionary War.
But after the war, and as great minds began to work in that wonderful constitutional laboratory in Philadelphia, the two Georges found themselves on opposite sides of a very important philosophical boulevard. You see, George Mason refused to sign the new Constitution, and became an outspoken opponent during the ratification process.
Mason was a partisan. And the nation owes him a debt of gratitude.
While Publius and company were publishing the Federalist Papers in newspapers of the day, others (some hiding behind pseudonyms) circulated a series of loosely-organized essays and speeches known to us as the Anti-Federalist Papers. This was long before “group-think” made its way into the vernacular. The list of men contributing to this exercise in partisanship included Mr. Mason, Patrick Henry, and George Clinton. These names are probably not as well known to Americans today as Hamilton, Madison, or Jay, but they certainly acted out of patriotism and made a real difference for individual rights.
At issue was the fact that the Constitution sent to the states for ratification in 1787 did not include a declaration of individual rights. George Mason had a passion for this issue having created the original drafts for the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, and he pushed for a similar statement in the new Constitution; to no avail.
He left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for his home in Fairfax, Virginia, and became a PARTISAN, which is basically defined as: “a fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.” He agitated, criticized, and worked tirelessly AGAINST the new Constitution’s ratification.
The Constitution was ratified, and Mason lost that battle, but he continued his fierce partisanship, until the U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. This very good thing happened BECAUSE of partisanship. And though George Mason and George Washington would see their friendship suffer, that sometimes intensely personal dispute gave birth to the Bill of Rights, based largely on Mason’s work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights years before.
The late former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, used to suggest that if two people agreed on everything you could be sure that only one was doing the thinking.
Geraldine Ferraro was right - at least about the partisanship thing – it’s naïve to think that any man, or woman, can end partisanship in America. And, in fact, why would anyone with a brain want that?
To twist the Rodney King-ism a bit I ask: “Can’t we all just NOT get along?” It’s actually a very good thing that we have partisanship in America. The real danger to our way of life does not come from political partisanship, but from those who desire a society where an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-encompassing state decides what is best for the rest of us.
Partisans of the nation, Divide! We have nothing to lose but our liberty.
Geraldine is a victim of her own parties politically correct master plan that is now turned on itself. How does it feel? the dogs are feeding on each other! what goes around comes around, eh!
the hope is really nothing more than hype.
My oldest daughter has a lot of college age friends, otherwise sensible kids, who are being taken in by this hype. She was appalled when I pointed her to some of Obama's hyper-partisan positions such as allowing born alive and otherwise healthy aborted infants to die because their "owner" did not want them born.
Still, we will be voting for flop-ears in the Pennsylvania Primary because I think he will be easier to take down than the Hildebeast. We have one last week to send in the registration paperwork.
The clash of pro-freedom founding fathers is 180 degrees from the clash of anti-freedom collectivists. Misuse of analogy.
Excellent article. Our exhultation of “bipartisanship” may be just another manifestation of the utopianism which so many Americans invest in their political beliefs. We are certain, somehow, that people are basically good and are capable of getting along just fine, and thus we expect it of our politicians. Thus the desperate desire for someone like an Obama who seems to promise an elevation above “petty” interests who will unite us. It is all utter nonsense of course.
Well like Geraldine we will all be told that if we question Obama and his Liberal ideology then we are racist, divisive, bigotted, homophobes, conservatives far right wing nuts etc.... The more that fall under his spell the worse off this country is going to be.
Isn’t the constant barrage of criticism on George W. Bush from the left and the right exactly the point in democracy? Why would anyone want to change that? If you can shut down your opposition by decalring that your way is the correct way then you have effectively shut down our Freedom.
Does American want to give that up? Civil Rights Rhetoric in the 50’s and 60’s served a purpose to describe the plight of minorities that felt oppressed by the White Majority, Obama is using similiar Rhetoric today only who are the Oppressed he is talking about, who is this We the good and rightous that must overcome the division caused by them the hate filled and intolerant, those that divide this nation.
The truth is that it is Obama that divides, his church teaches division and intolerance of Whitey, His wife divides, the first time in her life she can be Proud of this Country, Obama is the cause of the very division that he preaches he will overcome,
I have a dream that one day Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans will all walk hand in hand to get the peoples work done for the people....
Wait just a minute did I hear correctly that Obama will lower taxes, rebuke Roe V Wade in favor of states rights to enact abortion law, that Obama will fix social security by giving people ownership of their own money, that Obama will somehow create smaller government and reduce entitlements? Did Obama say he will stay on the offensive against the terror that came to our shores on 911...Did Obama say he would hold people accountable like those Illegals that break the law to come to this country?
No thats right it was just a dream... and when we look at what Obama will really do it is nothing more then divide this great nation by adopting very far left Liberal agendas that this country cannot afford.
mark
Is that the famous 'I pay my hookers by personal check' Bob B?????
Massachusetts is learning the hard way that Deval Patrick's "Together We Can" (hype) really means * further screw up Massachusetts *
Similar nonsense is all the yammering about “special interests.”
“Special interests” are nothing more that a bunch of individuals who band together for whatever reason to try to advance goals that are meaningful to them.
“Special interests,” when playing by the rules, are subject to the check and balance of partisanship. IOW, each group has to clash with the other to see which will win out in the marketplace of ideas.
When people complain about “special interests,” they really are only complaining that the other guys have been able to influence the idea market.
The National Association of Evangelicals, when it pushes for its goals in a political arena, is just as much a “special interest” as the United Auto Workers.
Decrying the role of “special interests” is as anti-reality as decrying partisanship.
I wonder why FNC hasn’t asked Bag of Hate Beckel what he thinks of Spitzers predicament. Seems to me he is the perfect subject matter expert.
Well said. Why are we so afraid of political conflict?
This writer should be charged with plagirism , Rush has stated this many times ,now because a Democrat Hack says it ,it becomes news.
Partisanship is diversity.
Having more than one political party is divisive. It was meant to be so, and is a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.