Credible Non-Partisanship Is the Only Kind of Non-Partisanship

According to the New York Times, Republicans objected to an economic report published by the Congressional Research Service that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. The GOP complained that the study relied on an oversimplistic methodology. The CRS eventually withdrew …

  1. Guruforhire

    Fundamentally there is no such thing as non-partisan.

  2. Schrodinger

    Fundamentally there is no such thing as non-partisan.

    I agree. Partisanship is ubiquitous.

    There is bi-partisanship where both sides work together.

  3. Guruforhire

    Worldviews dictate the way we view the world, and vicariously partisanship.

    I do believe that we live in a concrete world, but the filter by which we view it is not.  There is nothing free from that filter.

  4. Crow
    Guruforhire: Fundamentally there is no such thing as non-partisan. · 5 hours ago

    The way this sentence is phrased might leave someone with the impression that one can never arrive at the truth of things but only a partisan interpretation–and this smacks too greatly of a dangerous relativism to me.

    Let us, rather, recognize for the time being that for practical purposes partisanship is ubiquitous. Even having said that, can’t we also distinguish between better and worse forms, and more and less egregious expressions of it?

    If CRS was cooking its books in such a way that anyone trained in the arts of statistical analysis could recognize the dodgy methodological choices made by the reports authors that heavily skewed the results, and that further the authors may have made these choices so as to benefit their own political cause, truth be damned, than can surely be seen as a dishonest partisanship.

    Whereas, the man of the opposite party who critiques that report–while certainly not unbiased himself and while he certainly has how own partisan interest in debunking it–he has been animated by a healthier form of partisanship, has he not?

  5. Crow
    Guruforhire: Worldviews dictate the way we view the world, and vicariously partisanship.

    I do believe that we live in a concrete world, but the filter by which we view it is not.  There is nothing free from that filter. · 11 minutes ago

    Yes, surely “worldviews” are the lens through which we initially see the world–we are rooted in traditions, we speak particular languages, we were born in a particular time and place, and so on. 

    But the question turns on whether it is possible to transcend one’s initial worldview in any sense, or whether it entirely dictates all that we can think and say. Really this question is–can be said to be–whether reason exists, whether truth exists, how accessible it is to us. Is philosophy possible?

    Our time is particularly accustomed to thinking the way you have formulated the point in your third sentence–”nothing is free from that filter” but it is unclear if that proposition is true or if it is merely the prejudice of our time.

    To say the very least, all traditional religious perspectives speak against this view, and certainly the great classical philosophers of the past have also rejected this view. 

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In