# Why do people use "partisan" as an epithet? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2002, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046 "2002-11-09T18:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/21 "2002-11-10T12:10:22Z")
Here’s an example of the bad kind of partisanship (IMHO): A couple years ago, my mother commented on her disgust that people would elect Oliver North to the Senate, since he had been convicted of a felony. I asked her what she thought about Teddy Kennedy, and she grew very silent. See, a partisan often tries to come up with principled reasons to justify his or her own prejudice. Instructive are the mental gymnastics that many people went through to distinguish Anita Hill and Paula Jones. There’s a certain intellectual dishonesty in this sort of partisanship, since the partisan has an agenda that he or she is not disclosing. It’s also annoying to talk issues with someone who can’t see things objectively. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/22 "2002-11-10T15:26:04Z")
What felony was Teddy Kennedy convicted of? Something to do with Chappaquiddick? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/23 "2002-11-10T16:01:58Z")
> [@](#): > > What felony was Teddy Kennedy convicted of? Something to do with Chappaquiddick? I believe he pled guilty to leaving the scene of a serious car crash. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/24 "2002-11-10T16:13:35Z")
Best recent example of the misuse of the word: from the _Washington Post_ [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30296-2002Nov8.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30296-2002Nov8.html) "In his first public comments after resigning as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Harvey L. Pitt yesterday lashed out at critics and opponents who forced him to leave the job he coveted after less than two years. “My tenure at the SEC has been shorter than I expected,” Pitt said in a speech to the Securities Industry Association annual meeting in Boca Raton, Fla. “I hope my successor isn’t greeted with the same climate of attack and partisanship,” he said. “It’s easy to find fault, and it’s easy to criticize. In a partisan environment, criticism often devolves into attack. This doesn’t help anyone. In fact, it’s not just unproductive, it’s counterproductive…” _Pobrecito!_ ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/25 "2002-11-10T18:32:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\*[ > In what way am I lying when I call myself pro abortion? \*\* You can call \* yourself \* pro abortion, if that’s what you are, but it looked like you were suggesting that \* pro-choice \* is somehow disingenuous. Many pro-lifers mischaracterize pro-choice as pro-abortion, when very few people are actually pro-abortion. What they are for is the right to have one if a woman determines that it is the best choice for her. They are different things. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/26 "2002-11-10T18:35:35Z")
Just what any pro-death partisan would say! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/27 "2002-11-10T18:46:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > See, a partisan often tries to come up with principled reasons to justify his or her own prejudice. Instructive are the mental gymnastics that many people went through to distinguish Anita Hill and Paula Jones. > \*\* I’d like to take this opportunity to say that I thought Anita Hill was a big priss, and probably full of it besides. stoid ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/28 "2002-11-10T20:51:09Z")
And Stoid, I thought you were a neo-con or something. Just goes to show. I’m a partisan, a liberal and a democrat. If people don’t like it, they can jump in a lake. I have friends who are partisans. Some are liberals, some conservatives. I don’t have anything against people who are not partisans, but I do tend to think it odd and stupid for people not to care and/or vote. Politics is the only suitable sport for grown ups. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/29 "2002-11-10T22:09:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > > You can call \* yourself \* pro abortion, if that’s what you are, but it looked like you were suggesting that \* pro-choice \* is somehow disingenuous. \*\* Indeed I am pro abortion. And indeed I am suggesting that _pro choice_ is “disingenuous.” Or, more to the point, obfuscatory. As are _pro life_ and _death tax_. After all, I’m “pro choice” on issues ranging from gun ownership to illegal drugs to classy smut. I like my labels to reveal, not appeal. But if you have no problem with newspeak phrases like _pro choice_ and _pro life_, isn’t it somewhat inconsistent to object to _death tax_? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2002, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/30 "2002-11-10T22:28:40Z")
No, and I explained why. It is also reasonable and fair to call it \* pro abortion rights. \* Do you not get the distinction? If I’m not completely out to lunch, I believe that \*\* Polycarp \*\* supports an individual woman’s right to choose an abortion, if she absolutely feels she must. But I know well that he is anti-abortion itself, and would rather see it never performed. I think most people who would describe themselves as “pro-choice” would agree with that, although the degree to which they are uncomfortable with abortion itself certainly varies. Therefore to say that someone who supports a woman’s right to choose an abortion (or not) is “pro-abortion” is not at all accurate. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/31 "2002-11-11T00:01:06Z")
Yes Stoid, I am familiar with all of the rationalizations for the term _pro choice_ (though I admit that I don’t know if it’s supposed to be hyphenated or not). I’m also honest enough to admit that some abstract “right to choose” is meaningless unless it can be acted upon in a reasonable fashion. So I support the existence of large numbers of legal, easily accessible facilities for obtaining abortions. Now, not being naïve, I recognize that this will result in my being a part of a society in which large numbers of abortions take place. I support this. I am pro abortion. But that isn’t the point. The point is that once-upon-a-time the phrase _pro choice_ didn’t exist. It came into being because some people, and especially some politicians, were uncomfortable with the negative connotations of the _pro abortion_ label. They chose _pro choice_ because it’s vague (as I tried to point out above, almost any position can be described as _pro choice_) and it replaces a negative concept (abortion) with a positive concept (choice). It is a blatantly political label designed to influence the way people perceive the issue. (Notice that you will never hear a politician describe themselves as _pro abortion rights_) In this sense it is identical to calling occupying soldiers _peacekeepers_ or calling estate taxes a _death tax_. They are all _political_ labels _designed_ to appeal to peoples emotions and influence their thinking. My initial point was simply that pretending that the right has a monopoly on this technique by condemning the use of the phrase _death tax_ is, well, partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/32 "2002-11-11T00:08:08Z")
I wasn’t pretending they had a monopoly. Only that they are experts, and they make it a point to be. It is part of the Democratic failing that they do not, or when they try to be, they tend to bumble. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/33 "2002-11-11T01:52:22Z")
I think **lucwarm** was heading in the right direction. _Partisan_ is rightly a pejorative term if it applies to the sort of double-standard that **lucwarm** alludes to. Women’s groups tended, for example, to roundly condemn sexual liasons between men and women that worked for them as inherently exploitative - but were strangely silent when Clinton’s troubles surfaced. When Democrats controlled the Senate, Republican leaders were outraged at the delays Bush’s judicial nominees were experiencing in the confirmation process - an amazing feat of selective memory, given the delays to which the Republican-controlled Senate subjected Clinton’s nominees. When a person adopts contrary positions, or refuses to criticize a prominent member of one party for conduct that would draw a sharp reprimand were it committed by a member of the other party… well, then, “partisan” is both a fair comment and a fair insult. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/34 "2002-11-11T04:06:08Z")
Well Bricker, women’s groups didn’t condemn Clinton’s relationships, supposed and otherwise, because it was 100 percent clear to them that if anyone was exploiting someone, it was Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones exploiting Clinton for personal prestige and money respectively. That you might not agree with the direction of the exploitation probably doesn’t bother those women’s groups at all, as they get to have their own opinion without someone conservatives telling them what to think in an effort to exploit women’s issues for irrelevant political gain. Pretty much the same can be said of Kathleen Willey. I got a flat tire today. Must be Clinton’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/35 "2002-11-11T05:42:43Z")
Hehehehe. Sparticus. eggggggsellent. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/36 "2002-11-11T06:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\*Well Bricker, women’s groups didn’t condemn Clinton’s relationships, supposed and otherwise, because it was 100 percent clear to them that if anyone was exploiting someone, it was Monica Lewinsky… > \*\* Be honest….you cant even remember 1998, can you? Let me help: > [@](#): > > \*\* > While deploring Clinton’s conduct in the Monica Lewinsky affair\*\*, the feminists said they did not consider his actions impeachable and decried what they called a relentless campaign to hound him from office. From:[Detroit free Press](http://www.freep.com/news/clinton/qwomen25.htm) But……other than being completely wrong…I must admit that your post was quite eggggggsellent. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/37 "2002-11-11T12:29:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\* > But……other than being completely wrong…I must admit that your post was quite eggggggsellent. \*\* For what it’s worth, I think that the post you refer to was a decent example of the sort of self-serving, result-oriented reasoning of partisans that is so annoying in many contexts. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/38 "2002-11-11T14:02:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\*And Stoid, I thought you were a neo-con or something. Just goes to show. > > I’m a partisan, a liberal and a democrat. If people don’t like it, they can jump in a lake. I have friends who are partisans. Some are liberals, some conservatives. I don’t have anything against people who are not partisans, but I do tend to think it odd and stupid for people not to care and/or vote. \*\* Of course, that’s a false dilemma. Caring and voting do not require you become a member of a political party. The term “partisan” does not mean “someone who cares about politics.” Since I’m part of the reason this thread exists, I may as well weigh in. When people use the term “partisan” as a perjorative, they are not saying “You care about political issues, and that’s bad.” The term “partisan” is generally used to describe someone whose political view begins with their identification with a political party or advocacy group, and who then reasons everything, or nearly everything, to abide by their allegiance to that group. To use American politics as our example, I would define a partisan as being someone whose political viewpoint STARTS with their allegiance to either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party (or the Green Party or whatever) and then proceeds from there to rationalize everything to support their chosen party. James Carville is a classic political partisan (or gives the appearance of being one) - he will rationalize almost anything and interpret all facts, up to and including twisting the truth, to fit the notion that Democrats Are Good and Republicans Are Bad. Rush Limbaugh is the same thing with the Republican Party; he starts with the assumptions Republicans Are Good and Democrats Are Bad and goes from there, and any evidence to the contrary is conveniently left out or downplayed. Everyone has their exceptions (Limbaugh never liked George H. Bush, IIRC) but I think we can safely say there’s degrees of partisanship and some folks are clearly wayyyyy off to the partisan side. To answer Stoid’s post, THAT’S WHY PEOPLE USE “PARTISAN” AS A PERJORATIVE. It’s meant to describe people who are, to a greater or lesser extent, more interested in cheerleading for a political party or group (or against one, I guess) than they are in an honest examination of the issues. Look, I’ve known a lot of folks who could fairly be described as partisans. My best friend in university was a card-carrying member of a major party. It is my universal experience that everyone who gets heavily into the fortunes of a political party checks her/his brain, or at least the honest and rational part of it, at the door, at least with respect to politics. I have never met a single exception. It’s just MHO, but I am convinced partisanship is inversely related to honesty and intelligence, and I find it’s a legitimately destructive force in public life and goes against honest examination of critical issues. I vote in EVERY election. I research my vote. Don’t tell me I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/39 "2002-11-11T16:26:46Z")
Stoid- here’s a simple analogy. “Partisan” is to Policital Party as “Jingoist” is to country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046/40 "2002-11-11T17:28:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > **Well Bricker, women’s groups didn’t condemn Clinton’s relationships, supposed and otherwise, because it was 100 percent clear to them that if anyone was exploiting someone, it was Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones exploiting Clinton for personal prestige and money respectively. That you might not agree with the direction of the exploitation probably doesn’t bother those women’s groups at all, as they get to have their own opinion without someone conservatives telling them what to think in an effort to exploit women’s issues for irrelevant political gain.** No, you misapprehend my point. Do you seriously doubt that, had the President been a Republican, and the entire Monica Lewinsky story unfolded precisely as it did with Mr. Clinton, that womens’ groups would have condemned the President for exploitative behavior? Whether it actually was or was not exploitative behavior is not the point. It’s an illustration of taking contrary positions on issues merely because of a different political party being involved. If the example still makes you uncomfortable, there are no dearth of others. Substitute: If the wife of a Republican president had been named by the President to chair a committee on national health care reform, do you honestly believe she would have gotten the flack from conservatives that Ms. Clinton did? Of course not. - Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-use-partisan-as-an-epithet/136046.md?page=3)