2 thoughts on “The partisan and the political

  1. Good article (partisanship v. ideology), but the analsysis can go one further to arrive at a cogent answer.

    The problem is, neither of the current predominant ideologies has an economic model apart from deficits. (That “whose addiction [to deficits]” is a legitimate debate itself is germane to say the least).
    The fact that deficit modeling (on the individual and whole economy levels) is the ONLY model is why we have intractable partisanship.

    Within this economic model, the only apparently allowable topics, keep cycling around 1) who/what is entitled to create indebtedness on behalf of everyone else?, 2) whose fault is it that there is indebtedness?, and more recently, 3) what are “entitlements” that we can do without?

    When you answer those questions, there is little sunlight between partisanship and ideology. And we the people have a little more than an intuitive inkling about it (ugh, that was the one clunker in the article). That’s why the answer to the question of left and right is NEITHER. Because WTP would like to employ something other than a deficit model in the first place.

    It’s like the initial idea of credit got bolloxed along the way and went from the postive column to the negative. That’s how the smartest guys in the room bollloxed the economy (they inverted the definitions for their own benefit and to everyone else’s detriment). As for everyone else, credit don’t mean what it used to mean.

Comments are closed.