Partisanship

I know a fair number of people who like to think of themselves as being against political parties. These are the kind of people who will consider both Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann to be just partisan hacks, who will say that "both sides" are frequently and/or systemically dishonest, and that the true reasonable solution to most or all problems lies between the "extreme left" and the "extreme right." Ironically, though, I think these are some of the people who most allow the political parties to define their thinking, and here's why.
My theory works like this: for someone with this kind of anti-partisanship attitude, anything that coincides exactly or nearly exactly with the platform of a political party is presumed unreasonable, and anything that coincides very weakly with any political party, or in particular that lies between the platforms of all major parties (or in theory that is in an overlap between the platforms of more than one parties), is presumed reasonable. The problem, of course, is that parties can choose where they position themselves, and this gives those parties power over perceptions of reasonableness. For instance, say the Democrats propose a health care plan very similar to what Republicans have been advocating for a century, if not less progressive than those former GOP plans. But look! Republicans can simply choose to oppose it! And then the plan becomes What The Democrats Want, and is therefore the Extreme Left and is presumed unreasonable. Likewise, Rachel Maddow and Glenn Beck present very very different pictures of factual reality on their respective shows, which makes them both partisan hacks who must therefore both be wrong. In fact, they are equally wrong, and the truth must be directly between their two worldviews. But look! Glenn Beck can simply choose to get even more crazy! And then, because each political party is defined as being equally biased and unreasonable, the "reasonableness" point moves half as far as Beck does himself, and in the very same direction. So a deliberate increase in craziness by one of the political parties is, in this supposedly anti-partisan worldview, rewarded, and increases the extent to which that party's positions are viewed as reasonable.

The truly non-partisan way to approach issues is very different. Step One would be to place oneself behind a kind of veil of ignorance in which one had no knowledge of any political parties or their platforms. Then one would examine the issues and determine both what was true and what was good (neither of which is entirely objective, and the latter stage is almost entirely subjective, but whatever). Finally one would take off the veil and examine each political party, their platforms, and the arguments they and their supporters make, and see who tells untruths, who uses bad logic, who has ulterior motives that are contrary to the public good, etc. At this stage, it might happen that both parties do equally well or badly on this test. Or it might not. But either way, the way you think about issues would not actually be influenced by the positions of the political parties; rather, the way you think about political parties would be influenced by your positions on the issues. Of course, one might end up simply being forced to conclude that, yes, this party is lying most of the time, and being disingenuous, and trying to misinform, all with malice aforethought, and this other party is not systemically doing any of these things, and also happens to have a better, more honest platform, so it ought be supported. To be prejudiced against this outcome, however, would give political parties actual power over your opinions, instead of giving your opinions power over political parties.