Progressives seem to be engage in an effort to project the hyper-partisanship of the day onto their opposition. The party line is that progressives have transcended partisanship; therefore, it is the reactionaries and free-marketeers who are the source of the shrill partisanship.
This idea is patently absurd.
Progressives are people who seek solutions in government. The opposition is largely people who seek solutions in the market and want limited government.
By nature, people who are seeking solutions through politics are more prone to adhere to a political party.
The "Tea Party" was named after a historical event. The tea parties are uniting independents who are usually less active in partisan politics.
It is true that right wing partisans love seeing independents railing against the left wing partisans. This fact does not mean that all of the opposition to the massive power grab by the Obama administration is partisan.
Anyway, the efforts of progressives to project partisanship on those seeking to preserve the American Constitution is an absurd political lie.
I'm not sure the idea is absurd ... but is surely irrational
ReplyDeleteWords are interesting things. This post was in response to claims by Democrats that the Independents were simply being partisan in their opposition of Health Care Reform.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that people who have rejected both parties are driven by partisanship is absurd. "Absurd" is the right word in this context.
"Irrational" isn't the right term. Rationality is largely about whether or not you have a reason behind your action. If you have a reason behind what you are doing, then you are being rational.
A person might actually choose to have a big fit on stage as an effort to achieve a desired effect. The apparently irrational act has a reason behind it.
The proponents of health care have a reason for projecting an image onto the opponents. So, their actions actually are rational.
George Lakoff was a big fan of the term "framing." Framing is a rational activity where-in one seeks to manipulate the view of a debate to one's advantage.
Framing and projection lead to a slew of logical fallacies. The peopele engaged in the action are behaving rationally. They are rationally choosing to subvert discourse to achieve their ends.