Why party politics are always a bad idea

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112674719461641356-IVjf4NjlaF4np2sZXqIbqaEm5,00.html

Now, first off, loyal reader(s) will already know I despise party politics of all sorts. I find the Republicans work hard to get votes and to do what is good for the Republican Party while the Democrats work hard to get votes and do what is good for the Democratic party. Meanwhile, who is working hard to do what is good for the country? Only in the rare, rare, unheard of instances where the good of the party happens to coincide with the good of the country. I am sure there are examples. Feel free to point them out.
Meanwhile, in the referenced article, both parties are at it again. Let's start with the positioning of the values propagated. By labeling some of the ideas "conservative" a host of ideas is entered into the books that have little or nothing to do with the idea being presented. And while the article words it differently, when it says "In response, Democrats are pressing for other proposals that suit their ideology." it is, in reality, in the minds of most people, labeling those ideas "liberal".
Neither label is correct. Both are harmful. And to further show how stupid labels are and how stupid party politics are, let's look at education. A battle has long raged over alternative funding for education. Magnet schools, special programs, vouchers, and other methods are rallying cries. Arguments over who benefits and who suffers for them are considered newsworthy so often they become almost ignored by much of the population unless they are on the current ballot.
Many people disagree with the way public schools are being run today. Religious people who rightly point out the public schools in this country were founded for the express purpose of teaching people to read so they could read the Bible for themselves are upset their children are being taught principles quite contrary to their principles. Those principles include the knowledge, certain and indisputable in their minds, that evolution is bad science, sex education is immoral and not the responsibility of the schools, and so forth.
Meanwhile, other groups, just as set in their principles and just as sure they know their beliefs to be true, are upset that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are taught, which to them is bad science, that true sexual equality is not taught but instead half-way things like "safe sex" and buzz words like "alternative lifestyle" are used, that killing of any life form goes on, and many other issues.
Yet all the various groups are required to fund public schools. Smarter students have problems escaping a system designed to proceed at the pace of the slowest learning student while slower learners are often overmatched by a system that sees them as dollar signs instead of people. Middling students bounce back and forth depending on the class.
Yet providing alternatives to people to this pointless, archaic, and ineffective school system are a conservative issue? Only because it is labeled "school voucher". Want proof? How about this quote from the article: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu unveiled a plan that would, among other things, provide $2,500 education grants to displaced students and..."
Take away the name school voucher and education grant and they are arguing for the same base thing; alternative funding for education that will result in allowing people to choose where and how to be educated. And regardless of who presents it, or even why, I am all for that.
Meanwhile, the tariff issue, long a hot point...since, oh, I don't know...Jamestown? which always has 1 party in support of some and against others while the other opposes the first set and argues for the second, all dependent on current voting bloc strengths, is an issue when the important thing is getting materials to people stupid enough to rebuild in a location below sea level where bad things happen.
While I am on that rant...I firmly and strongly oppose government financed relief for Florida hurricane victims. If, by now, you don't know it is coming...and will be back next year, and the year after, and the year after...you are stupid enough that I can only say I hope the next one gets you. Funerals are cheaper and easier on the emotions than rebuilding the same house every three years because, in a "shocking" development, a hurricane struck the same place it hit three and 5 years before.
Meanwhile, creating tax-advantage areas is something I despise. I am a firm believer in having exactly 2 taxes. One flat tax with no discounts, deductions, additions, or subtractions that takes care of the Federal government. And the same thing imposed by the state. Giving a tax break to one group and a penalty to another is the very definition of unfairness. If we are going to scream capitalism and free market than engage in free market capitalism. Stop subsidizing the tobacco growers, for instance. I am against all subsidies, all the time, everywhere. If it cannot make it on its own merits then it should not be.
Oh, I know some will argue that approach will stifle research. Oddly, before subsidies, it did not stifle but rather stimulated research. Ever wonder about all the subsidies Alexander Graham Bell got? Please research that one...he did not, to the best of my knowledge, ever get one.
It is sad that deception is being used to hurt the people. The Good Samaritan protection is nothing but a good idea. And, as stated, negligence or willful harm is not protected. Yet some idiot argues it as a political issue, even going so far as to state a false claim: "In a statement, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America said, "If a nursing home resident evacuated from New Orleans to a nursing home in a neighboring state dies of untreated, infected pressure sores, the out-of-state home would be protected."
The bill's chief sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the legislation removes the "threat of legal fear that stands between many willing and able Good Samaritans and the victims of Hurricane Katrina." The bill does permit lawsuits for injuries that were caused "by willful, wanton, reckless, or criminal conduct."
Fortunately, it is lawyers making the first claim. We already know they are just as dishonest as politicians. Strange also that a for-pay job (nursing homes, the last time I checked, charge exorbitant fees to alleviate families from the need of caring for their own) is compared to a "because I am a good person I will help for free" situation. No, something political had to motivate that one. You do the research, someone, somewhere is trying to get votes instead of trying to see people help. I am sure a lawsuit is coming my way for this post, because we are such a litigious society that the truth hurts more than helping people feels good.
At the same time, it is hard to justify using this situation as an excuse to roll back some of the environmental laws. While I am a known and proud anti-environementalist when they go too far, I also am not for wanton, needless, or casual destruction of the environment. And once a law is on the books, you need a pretty compelling reason to take it off.
And one more thing...the emergency airlift program...not much is said about it, but remove sponsoring party names, how could anyone stand against something designed to save lives?
There is only one thing worse than party politics. And that is...not being able to come up with anything worse than party politics.