Some people complain about bitter partisan politics. I welcome it. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena the greater the conflict. Let's look at it by way of a few examples:I like the Lexus LS 460. I also like Dell computers. Many other people have different preferences. Some might prefer a Cadillac and an HP computer while others prefer a Chrysler and IBM computer. With these strong preferences for particular cars and computers, we never see people arguing or fighting in an effort to impose their preferences for cars and computers on other people. There's car and computer peace. Why? You buy the car and computer you want; I do likewise and we remain friends.
There's absolutely no reason for car and computer choices to remain peaceful. Suppose our car and computer choices were made in the political arena through representative democracy or through a plebiscite where majority ruled. We would decide collectively whether our cars would be Lexuses or Cadillacs or Chryslers. We also would decide collectively whether our computer would be a Dell or HP or IBM computer.
I guarantee there would be nasty, bitter conflict between otherwise peaceful car and computer buyers. Each person would have reason to enter into conflict with those having different car and computer tastes because one person's win would necessarily be another's loss. It would be what game theorists call a zero-sum game.
How would you broker a peace with these parties in conflict? If you're not a tyrant, I'm betting you would say, “Take the decision out of the political arena and let people buy whatever car and computer they wish.”
To add to Williams piece, the more partisan and bitter, the less that "gets" done. Why is that when the government "gets things done", my rectum gets a little bit tighter?