Partisanship, Harvard-Style

Angered by a prolonged spell of spineless—or, often, non-existent—opposition in Washington to the Bush Administration, Frank Rich ’71 thundered in his New York Times column last Saturday morning: “Do the Democrats stand for anything other than the next election?” His question was clearly intended to convey scorn for the shallow pragmatism that underpins so many of the party’s current tactics. Yet, had Rich posed the question to the budding politicos at his alma mater, the leadership of the Harvard College Democrats (HCD) would have gladly answered him—with a resounding negative.

Carrying out full and frank discussions of the vital issues currently at stake in the political arena seems less important for either HCD or their counterparts, the Harvard Republican Club (HRC), than participating in partisan scrapping to win next month’s elections. As the Bush Administration pilots the country inexorably—and inexplicably—towards a war in Iraq that will squander both international goodwill and American lives, it might seem reasonable to expect HCD to have a coherent policy on the conflict. Apparently not.

College Democrats President Sonia H. Kastner ’03 explained in a telephone interview their reticence to hold an official view on the subject: “While war in Iraq is extremely important, there’s also a Senate race in New Hampshire and we feel that our role is to get Democrats elected who will then be able to insure that the issue is handled in the best way possible.”

The fact that Democratic members of Congress, neutered by their fear of being labeled unpatriotic, cannot provide any credible opposition to the conflict has, alas, bypassed Kastner. “If we don’t get Democrats in power, then what we say will be ignored,” she claimed. Doubtless, between handing out countless fliers, pins and t-shirts to potential Jean Shaheen supporters on the streets of New Hampshire, there has just been no time for HCD members to figure out amongst themselves whether they agreed with her hawkish, pro-administration views on war in Iraq. “We’re not campaigning for Jean Shaheen because we like her personally—though we do—it’s because she’s a Democrat,” said Kastner. She reassured me that some policy debates would start up after the hustle and bustle of getting Democrats into office in an election year had died down. Thank goodness: just in time.

HRC President Brian C. Grech ’03 agreed with Kastner’s prioritization of undergraduate campaigning. “Our issuing policy statements is kind of a waste of time—everyone already knows what conservatives nationwide think,” he explained. “Anyway, in almost every case we support what the President or Republican congressional majority feels.”

And he, like Kastner, was pleased to report that partisanship on campus was on the increase. Indeed, Grech launched an interesting defense of political partisanship by suggesting that it “provokes an intellectual discourse because if students always like to ride the fence, they will not engage an issue as deeply as if they picked one side and were forced to defend it.” Unfortunately for Grech’s theory, partisanship, Harvard-style, involves far more leaflet distribution than policy deliberation.

HRC and HCD’s current emphasis on blind partisanship is sadly misguided. The ability to consider each issue on its merits and act accordingly has been relegated to a minor concern behind vigorous campaigning for professional politicians. A primary function of HRC and HCD should be to encourage students to confront the important political questions of the day and formulate their own opinions on them, unburdened by preconceived dogma or diatribe. Their failure to do so is a lazy intellectual cop-out. Moreover, without the emergence of individuals from colleges like Harvard who are prepared to question publicly the wisdom of the ruling elites, the next few decades look extremely bleak for both of the parties in Washington. Student activism, for the sake of both the parties and the students involved, must come to involve active policy debates as well as vigorous phone banking.

The legendary 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once snapped at a backbench MP, agonizing over whether to vote to support the government, “damn your principles; stick to your party.” He was eloquently but utterly wrong. Developing one’s own principles and ideals is infinitely more important than supporting rigid party allegiances whose sole purpose is getting individuals elected who share one’s outlook. That the Harvard Democrats currently stand prepared to campaign for anyone who pins a donkey button to their lapel is, appropriately enough, asinine.

Anthony S.A. Freinberg ’04 is a history concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.