FAQs
So this site is just for Americans?
NO! It’s called “Americans Who Don’t Hate Each Other” because the owner is American and his frame of reference is American politics. But, the divisive elements that it condemns: parties, factions, ideologies (etc.) fracture all democracies, not just the U.S.
And you really want to get rid of political parties?
Yes. To become less divided, we must stop dividing ourselves.
So you don’t believe in democracy?
I most certainly do! Anti-partisanism aims to remake politics democratically, by winning elections and policy contests on an unprecedented scale. Also, the reformed system it means to put in place would be a democracy, just without parties.
What makes you think anti-partisanism could be so popular that it would wipe out parties?
A system that is designed to respond to the concerns of all stakeholders is self-evidently superior to one that only attends to the stakeholders on the “winning side.” Gradually, more and more voters would realize this until parties are whittled away down to nothing.
But, aren’t parties a built-in feature of democracy?
Actually, no. The U.S. Constitution never mentions them. And several of the most prominent of the nation’s Founders opposed them, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, though all but Washington eventually caved.
Ok, but the Founders weren’t right about everything. After all, many of them owned slaves. Are there any prominent voices since then who have shared this view on parties?
There was a 20th-century French philosopher named Simone Weil who wrote a pamphlet in 1943 called “On the Abolition of All Political Parties.” She’s probably the most famous example. And there have been a few others, but not many.
Why do you believe parties are so divisive?
Parties’ need to win means they need to inspire their own side to take actions that lead to victory. That causes them to frame elections and policy conflicts in existential terms because nothing gets people to vote, donate, door knock and volunteer like making them think their opponents are awful people with awful policies and awful followers. This stokes the anger of both parties’ opponents, who resent the awful things that are said about them, and their supporters, who believe the awful things that are said. All this rage becomes stored up and accumulates over time, election cycle after election cycle, until, at some point, parties, at every level, inevitably start to believe their own propaganda. From their top officials to their rank-and-file partisans, parties begin to see the other side not as competitors that must be defeated, but as enemies that must be destroyed.
The existence of parties also causes almost everyone and everything to declare allegiance to one side or another. As partisan animosity rises, individuals and entities in the public eye, along with entire institutions of national life and the professions that comprise them, become increasingly emboldened to wave their partisan colors, creating a politically partitioned society, until almost every person or group with a public profile could effectively be featured on red or blue trading cards, identifying themselves as heroes to their own side but villains (and targets) to the other side.
Is that your only issue with parties?
Isn’t that enough? Ok, well how about the fact that they pick and choose among stakeholders. In any policy issue, there are multiple people and groups that will be affected by the way it is legislated, a.k.a. the stakeholders. And in a partisan system, only the stakeholders on the winning side get to have their concerns addressed. The losing stakeholders’ best-case scenario is that they’ll be ignored. In today’s climate, it’s more likely that the winners will intentionally antagonize them.
Anything else?
Yes, party-based government leads to inferior governance. Parties–via their members that serve in public office–are charged with jointly running governments that provide for the welfare of millions. But, these lawmakers are simultaneously working against lawmakers that aren’t from their party. And policymakers can never just concentrate on the real world impact of policies. They also have to factor in the political impact.
So you invented your own political system. Are you also its president??
Ha, no. Not yet anyway. But, seriously in order to spark a societal transformation, my idea would have to break through to public consciousness. If it doesn’t, I’m just the student who was given an assignment to create a hypothetical new civilization and went *really* overboard trying to earn extra credit. In other words, anti-partisanism can only take root if people are exposed to it. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist.
Ok, so what is anti-partisanism?
Anti-partisanism is a political philosophy that opposes political parties because they are inherently divisive. It also scorns ideologies and even the existence of political “sides.”
But, people have different beliefs. They disagree about almost everything. So how could that work?
They disagree, but they are all stakeholders. Anti-partisanism rejects the adversarial model of politics–wherein only the winners’ stakes matter–in favor of cooperative politics, which prioritizes the concerns of every stakeholder. Cooperative politics treats political issues as problems to be solved, not battles to be fought out.
How would you implement this system? Not to mention enforce it?
It would be implemented as anti-partisans start to organize and win elections with increasing frequency, gaining unprecedented majorities and giving them the capability of remaking democratic politics
But, if anti-partisans organize to win elections and overhaul existing policies, doesn’t that make them just another political party?
For a time, anti-partisans will have to function like a party. But, once parties and partisanism have withered, and anti-partisan policies have become entrenched, anti-partisans would disband. Anti-partisans seek to eliminate the partisan system, not sit atop of it.
Won’t entrenching anti-partisan policies require radical changes to current laws?
Yes. Anti-partisanism would drastically renovate the existing system, proposing around a dozen new Constitutional amendments, as well as making wholesale revisions to federal and state legal codes.
It still sounds pretty extreme. Doesn’t society have guardrails to keep partisan ideologues from going too far, for example, institutions like a free press and public and higher education?
Sadly, in contemporary times, those institutions can’t serve as guardrails because they only guard one side or another. The news media, schools and universities, and arts and entertainment worlds, to varying degrees lean left. This opens up space on the right for the cultivation of right wing “counter-ecosystems,” to each of these worlds. The net-result is that both sides exist in the alternate realities that they have created. Moreover, the country becomes ever more politically and culturally partitioned, until, as said before, almost everybody and everything can be color coded blue or red.
But, constitutional amendments and revisions to legal codes? How do you expect to manage that if everything is so divided and so politicized?
By depoliticizing everything! Politics should be confined to its own exclusive sphere. Institutions and entities that are not expressly political (i.e. those not involved in the business of full-time politics) nature must be stripped of their political elements.
Ok, well, obviously no one would argue that, when it comes to politics, society is dangerously divided. But, isn’t there a way to eliminate division that takes less of a “burn it down” approach?
Institutions and entities that aren’t devoted to professional politics would have to voluntarily purge themselves of any political elements and consciously align themselves with the anti-partisan values of UNO (unity, neutrality and objectivity).
What are some other anti-partisan values besides UNO?
Cooperative politics, an approach to governance where even lawmakers who strongly disagree regard each other as partners rather than adversaries. Stakeholder-centric policymaking, an approach to policymaking that is focused on addressing the concerns of all those who are directly affected by the issues that the policies in question are intended to address. Solutions-oriented politics, a model of politics that approaches political issues as problems to be fixed or solved, not fights to be won. Human justice, which anti-partisanism defines as the concept that universal equality is rooted in humanity. It is a philosophy of dissent against “social justice,” which grounds its notions of justice in people’s identity groups. Optimization, the principle that the only relevant consideration in determining which policies to enact is effectiveness–which policies work the best–for everybody. Value judgments (which form the core of ideologies) are irrelevant.
So, anti-partisan policy is results-based policy, guided by data and empirical field testing–science, in other words? But, almost if everything in life is so politicized, can you trust that the science isn’t politicized too?
Great point! And to answer your question, no you can’t trust it at face value. Like just about every other part of life, science has been thoroughly tainted by politicization. The partisan and ideological rot will have to be ripped out of the sciences, just as it will in every other area. In plain terms, this means a lot of science will have to be redone and subjected to enforced, objective inquiry
All these ideas are substantive, but highly conceptual. They exist only in the realm of ideas. Doesn’t anti-partisanism provide anything tangible? What’s the blueprint for the structure of an anti-partisan government?
The only reason these concepts are exclusively ideational is because no one has tried them! But, an anti-partisan government could be structured in numerous ways. There’s no precise model that has to be followed. What matters is that it operates according to anti-partisan principles.
Still, to have any real world utility, anti-partisanism has to provide people with something concrete and actionable. Aren’t there some kind of pragmatic steps that can be followed to advance its vision?
Anti-partisanism does offer a universal policymaking template that can be applied to any issue:
– Presume that people are good and come from a good place in their political beliefs
– Unflinchingly establish a set of premises in each policy area
– Identify the stakeholders in each policy area
– Identify stakeholders’ concerns in each policy area
– Seek solutions not victories
*** Eliminate flashpoints for conflict
*** Make recognition of the fundamental rights of stakeholders the starting point for making policy
*** Validate the cares of stakeholders