MennoNet.com

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:25 am

JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:13 am When I refuse to vote for anyone in one of the parties because it is supporting extreme anti-democratic positions, then I am concerned that I am being partisan.

I am not sure I am getting what you are saying here.

In the last election, I ruled out voting for candidates of a particular party because of how I felt they were acting as a whole. I feel a bit bad doing this, feeling that it is partisan, and knowing the other party also supports many things that I don't feel are right.

JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:34 am

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:25 am

JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:13 am When I refuse to vote for anyone in one of the parties because it is supporting extreme anti-democratic positions, then I am concerned that I am being partisan.

I am not sure I am getting what you are saying here.

In the last election, I ruled out voting for candidates of a particular party because of how I felt they were acting as a whole. I feel a bit bad doing this, feeling that it is partisan, and knowing the other party also supports many things that I don't feel are right.

Ok. I got it.

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:09 am I agree. So how do they become this way?

1) do you use or agree with the dictionary definition i posted above? (if not, what is the definition you want to use here?)

2) i believe it’s possible, and maybe more common than thought to be nonpartisan - HOWEVER, nonpartisan does not equate to ignorance; further, any given statement or choice is now automatically ASSIGNED a party designation.

Example:
Being pro life is a nonpartisan position.
Murder is a crime, regardless of political party, or no political party, religion or no religion.
Now so politicized, partisanship is ASSIGNED, whether it exists or not.

People are judged for being partisan, for merely stating a preference, choice, belief. This is rampant.
“The people” have allowed politicians+media to politicize everything. Few are not guilty.

A related question might be:
“What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan? not political?”

“Not political” would be not joining or contributing to political parties, not lobbying, not protesting, not voting for belief reasons, not running for political office .. being informed, having interests, opinions, are not necessarily partisan. Ignorance is only lack of information.

“the end justifies the means”
wrong or unfair methods may be used if the overall goal is good.

"we excuse our greed by claiming that the end justifies the means"

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:16 pm What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

The political parties are controlled by the party leaders, not the people.

The party leaders are controlled by (1) the banking establishment, (2) the CIA, and (3) the military industrial complex, which never reflects the will of the people.

Anyone that goes against these 3 entities is "non-partisan", like John Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy said he would "bust the CIA up into a million pieces", did not want to expand the war in Vietnam, and issued Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963 to replace Federal Reserve Notes with Silver certificates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

Five months later, John F. Kennedy was killed on Nov 22, 1963, the CIA and the Military complex under Lyndon Johnson put Vietnam into high gear, and Executive Order 11110 was overturned in March 1964.

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are both non-partisan in that they reflect the will of the people more than their party leaders.

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders co-authored a bill to audit the Federal Reserve - something that has never been done.

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders both ran for president in their parties, and both had the early lead in the primary voting, because the average person really likes what they say. In both parties, the votes were somehow "miscounted" by the party leaders to keep them out of the early primary wins, and by this way they were denied any hope of winning their party's primary for President.

Both political parties are controlled by the banks, the CIA, and the Military contractors. The CIA controls the mainstream media through their "Operation Mockingbird". Anderson Cooper is ex CIA, many others are tied to this system.

No sane American citizen wants a war, or a banker's recession/depression, or to be spied on by the CIA. Yet we have all of that now, because our political parties do not follow our interests.

So any politician that represents the will of the people in these areas is "non-partisan".

If you look at Robert Kennedy Jr, he is "non-partisan" in these areas, and has dropped out of the Democratic Party, and so has disappeared from the mainstream media. He is finished, but he really is "non-partisan". That is the fate of these people.

Ron Paul tried running for President as libertarian, but got nowhere - mostly due to our Electoral College - which gives a "winner takes all" for each state that ensures that only two parties can ever field a president. So he ran for President as a Republican and received the same fate as Bernie Sanders, and was beaten by the Republican Party establishment, and not the voters.

So what do you expect from a non-partisan politican? I expect that he would be thwarted if he runs inside the two party system, and ignored if he ran independently.

What do you get from a partisan politician? A puppet that reads off a teleprompter, and does whatever the banks, CIA, and Military Industrial Complex tells him to do.

I would be interested in your list of partisan and non-partisan politicians, and why you think they act as they do.

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:09 am

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 11:02 pmBut I would suggest that very few people are actually completely non-partisan.

I agree. So how do they become this way?

Most likely they simply aren’t interested in politics. Most people I talk to aren’t very interested in politics (particularly state level, national, and global politics). Perhaps they are interested in talking about a nearby road closure.

Interest in politics is the domain of the highly intellectual, and people are attracted to it whom wish to feel “smart” and to showcase to others how smart they are by their repertoire of information.

Because the driving characteristic is pride and a desire to be accepted and seen by others, politics inherently ends up meaning people try to hold the “right” positions rather than dispassionately and objectively looking at the facts and positions and making balanced, nuanced statements. Partisanship is an expression of the desire to be seen as “right”, as opposed to others who are ignorant, foolish, wrong, and the “other”.

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:25 am My list...

From a secular perspective...
1. They don't consistently take up the talking points of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, nor Greens
2. The speak favorably of various persons and policies and actions, no matter which party the one(s) being spoken about are from
3. They are willing to call out the abuse and neglect of various persons and policies and actions, no matter which party the one(s) being spoken about are from
4. They don't vote for the better of two evils. They vote for someone that they think will do the best job, regardless of whether that person has a chance of winning. And the person they vote for might be from any party or no party. If they don't know of anyone who would do a good job, they skip voting.

The above 4 is simply a particular partisan position. I assume you are stating the above with the implication the things above are somehow virtuous or morally superior.

The first step on the path to non-partisanship is to abandon the above 4 principles and stop seeing them as somehow morally superior.

From a spiritual perspective...
5. And then there are a different sort of non-partisans who view themselves as ambassadors from heaven who do not get involved in the politics on earth. These are non-partisan in a different way, although I suppose you could say they are partisan in the sense that they are loyal to the kingdom of God and its values, which don't change over time. You won't find these folks championing a certain cause in one era, and then pushing for the opposite a generation or two later.

In that case, most transitional Anabaptists wouldn’t qualify. They are notorious for championing some cause (such as proposing wearing plain suits in Lancaster Conference) and then being against it a few generations later.

Edit: JohnHurt’s position above is also a partisan one, and is actually a fairly significant political alignment (the one that prefers conspiracy theories to explain basically everything at a national level). In some cultural settings most people hold this particular political alignment. It is not, by any stretch, “non-partisan”.

Josh:
Partisanship is an expression of the desire to be seen as “right”, as opposed to others who are ignorant, foolish, wrong, and the “other”.

Do you use the dictionary definition found on P.1?

OP:

Ernie:
What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

What do you expect?
(i expect rejection of THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.)

temporal1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 8:51 am

Josh:
Partisanship is an expression of the desire to be seen as “right”, as opposed to others who are ignorant, foolish, wrong, and the “other”.

Do you use the dictionary definition found on P.1?

OP:

Ernie:
What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

What do you expect?
(i expect rejection of THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.)

Yes, I am. However, I am questioning some of the proposals of non partisanship as somehow being morally superior, which I actually think is the root of much political discord. It is nothing more than pride and haughtiness.

One of the most common examples of partisanship these days is simply believing whatever some biased media outlet says.

For example, a lot of people just believe whatever the Daily
Caller says like they are somehow inherently plugged into the truth. It is very disappointing to see evangelical Christians acting this way. It is driven by the same prideful desire to showcase to others that you have the “right” opinions.

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:16 pm What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

For me, the thing that I try to aspire to and wish everyone else did too; would be holding everyone, no matter what party, to the same ethical and spirit of the law standards (and some letter too).
Here and other places, like family or church, I don't see that as much as I'd like, which indicates a higher level of partisanship than desirable. People dishing out opprobrium or passes/justifications seemingly based on the capital letter behind a known figure...

When I see people generally able to hold anybody, as best they can, to the same standards, then I consider them to be non-partisan. In this moment, that seems to be one of the most important markers...