When Americans say – as they do – that they dislike “partisanship” in their politics, it doesn't seem that they dislike politicians who have clear and coherent views about the direction the country should take. (If they did, would Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama have been elected and popular?) Rather, they are turned off by people for whom partisanship seems a kind of vacuous loyalty, apart from any substantive views, like being an obsessive fan of the Detroit Red Wings, or a Star-Bellied Sneetch. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say things like (this is Joe Lieberman): “I put the interests of my country above my party.” Who then are the partisans, who put party above country? Are they Senators Jim DeMint or James Inhofe, fanatical conservatives, at home in the party that expresses their views about the direction of the country? Or renowned liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy or Sherrod Brown? For all four of them, the interests of party and country, as they see things, should rarely be in conflict, since their party best embodies their vision of the country. But what about Olympia Snowe, who is reduced to begging in the op-ed pages for the Republican Party to somehow change back to what it was in the 1970s, and incorporate her views? One can read her whole op-ed mystified about what makes her a member of a party that doesn't share her views. What is that if not putting party above country? Years ago, I heard Christine Todd Whitman speak during her “It's My Party Too!” tour, and I held my tongue rather than point out, "Umm, excuse me, but it really isn't.” If the party I'm registered in had drifted as far away from my views as Whitman or Snowe believe the Republican Party has from theirs, how many decades would I hang around waiting for it to change? What's the attachment? And if you think the country needs a low-tax, small-government, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-social justice party, then go create one. After all, the Republican Party itself was created by people who weren't content with what the Whigs, Democrats and Know-Nothings had to offer. I presume the explanation is just a kind of tribal loyalty: Whitman is a Republican because her father was a Republican and her grandfather was a Republican. It's like sending the kids to Exeter and Yale. It's just what our sort of people do. (Snowe, I should say, comes from a very different background.) But there's also a kind of convenience to it: Their hypothetical approach to government -- low taxes, strong defense, environmental protection, and a social safety net -- will conveniently never be put to the test. If they joined the party that supported all of the last three things, or formed their own, they might actually have to make some choices. --Mark Schmitt
