The End of Partisanship?

The other day during an International Relations class, I was briefly distracted from structural adjustments and balance of payment accounts and decided to engage in a Twitter conversation with the mayor of my city.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi was elected in October 2010. His grassroots campaign involved an active social networking strategy, coffee party visits with citizens, sidewalk chalk support, and plenty of town hall meetings. The voter turnout increased by from 33% in the previous election to an astonishing 53%. His campaign was called the “Purple Revolution” and this progressive transpartisan campaign captured the hearts and votes of citizens in one of Canada’s most conservative cities.

Now, a “do tank” in Calgary is seeking to advance conservative principles and reform local government. However, with an approval rating at 88%, Nenshi is not concerned about conservative or progressive activists. He thinks that city politics is essentially immune to partisanship because there are no political parties in local elections.

Recently he said, “I really believe — and National Post readers won’t like to hear this — but I really believe these labels of left wing, right wing, liberal, conservative, don’t mean anything. Is it a conservative or a liberal idea to plow residential roads?”

The populist social media whiz mayor and I had the following exchange about partisanship on Twitter.

Amanda Achtman @AmandaAchtman
@nenshi If “labels of left wing, right wing, liberal, conservative, don’t mean anything,” then what ideas guide your political action? #yyc

Naheed Nenshi @nenshi
@Amanda Achtman Ethics. Facts. Math. Doing what’s right, regardless of ideology.

Janna Gummo @jannagummo
@nenshi @AmandaAchtman @BigtimeYYC
But when you run for PM in 10 or 20 yrs… What party will you lead? #NenshiforPM

Amanda Achtman @AmandaAchtman
@jannagummo @nenshi @bigtimeyyc
He would lead the Purple Revolution Transpartisan Party of Awesome that Everyone Loves!

Naheed Nenshi @nenshi
@AmandaAchtman @jannagummo @bigtimeyyc
I like it. Can I use that if I ever go insane and consider federal politics?

In the ISI-published A Student’s Guide to Political Philosophy, Harvey Mansfield says that the one thing that politics and political philosophy have in common is argument. He says, “Politics means taking sides; it is partisan. Not only are there sides – typically liberal and conservative in our day – but they also argue against each other, so that it is liberals versus conservatives.” He says that though most people reason badly, they do reason and try to demonstrate how defending their own interests serves the common good. Then, Mansfield explains that political philosophers are those who seek to judge political partisans.

But what do we make of those who claim to transcend partisanship and who name their campaigns neither after a disposition to conserve nor the spirit to change things, but after various colors of the rainbow?  What do we make of citizens who appreciate retweets more than rebuttals? And, is it true that politicians do not have an electorate of partisans but one of followers and subscribers?

Politics will always be about argument and taking sides, even when the arguments are shallow and the sides are vague. Though we might not recognize it right away, transpartisanship is just another ideology. It was invented by partisans with clever marketing who are good at winning elections, but who do not have clearly defined and well-reasoned principles. It is an ideology of pragmatism which, philosophically, is not anything new. Emphasizing pragmatism above morality may win votes, but it is certainly not above the scrutiny of political philosophy.

Purple t-shirts will be on sale soon.