What is the value of “taking sides”?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an article in Sunday’s paper about whether we as a nation are too politically polarized for our own good.

The paper published some excellent comments in both the print and on-line editions. The number of pro-centrist, anti-partisan comments published indicates either the majority of the papers’ readers are centrist, or the paper wants us to believe that.

Liberal blogger Bill Christofferson took up the issue in his blog on Sunday in response that was rambling and inconclusive, apparently coming to the conclusion that we centrists decide the political issues in elections and that that ought to be good enough.

But what caught my eye was a response by one poster who said, “The middle are generally weak thinkers who are afraid to take a stand out of fear of retribution, typically they stand for nothing”. The poster went on, typically, to say that he was taking a stand by choosing one party because it stood up against the evil “other”.

What does “taking a stand” mean? To this poster, and to most partisan hacks of similar stripe, it’s obvious: taking a stand does not mean researching an issue, thinking through the alternatives and their likely (or possible) outcomes; rather it means choosing one side for the sake of choosing sides. In other words, taking a “partisan stand”.

Taking a partisan stand requires not becoming informed and not thinking through issues. One party tells us activist government, using regulations, tax incentives, and aid for the poor or disadvantaged is the right thing to do. Another tells us free markets, low taxes, tough defense, and morally-correct choices are the right thing to do.

The problem is that today’s policy decisions are too complex to fit into these simplistic partisan philosophies. Some issues require government involvement. Sometimes the private sector works better. Sometimes while we wish everyone would make the “moral” choice, it’s not realistic to mandate that people do so. These problems exist within issue areas. On the environment, empirical evidence has shown that government involvement is necessary but policies work best when based on the free market. When it comes to helping the disadvantaged, some government invovlement is good for some things but cannot overcome intractable problems.

Think of it like a home repair project. Pretend you have two tool boxes, which represent the two major parties and their philosophies, each with different tools. The weak-thinking partisan will take his tool box and demand that the tools in it will do the job. Even if they continually show signs of failing (like, for instance, Great Society-era welfare or abstinence-only education), the weak-thinking partisan will refuse to even consider looking in the other tool box to see if there is anything of use. Instead he or she will just attack the other tool box and dismiss it out of hand.

The strong-thinking centrist on the other hand says the hell with which tool box the tools are in, and looks for the right tools to do the job well.