Advantages and disadvantages of partisanship
While a political party's partisanship often develops the party's political ideology, Hunt argues that it also alienates mainstream voters. Instead, he asserts that bipartisanship produces measurable results.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with James B. Hunt, October 3, 2001. Interview C-0332. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JACK FLEER:
-
Too hypothetical on that. You alluded earlier to the fact that while you
felt the party leadership was a very important part of your job as
governor and your ability to be a successful governor, there are also
concerns or interests in being the governor of all the people. Where
does this partisanship or where did partisanship play the biggest role
in your services as governor, being a Democrat was really an important
thing?
- JAMES B. HUNT:
-
Well, it plays an important role in your own philosophy. We develop our
values, our ideas, our commitments as we come along, and party
involvement can help young people understand what kinds of public
policies you should have if you're going to do certain
things. If you're mainly concerned about holding taxes down
and keeping the government as small and as ineffective as you can, then
you have one set of values sort of like I guess the libertarians do. If
you believe that government can do certain things and should give people
an equal and full opportunity in life, you say that different things are
important. A perfect example right now when people realize that Ronald
Reagan was wrong, and government is not the enemy. He said it. People
kind of went along with it. That became the type of thinking for
decades. Government is the enemy. I was there when he said it. I told
you that earlier. So the party is important in helping you kind of have
a scheme, an approach to public affairs and what you do. But let me go
on to say to you that throughout my career in public service while I
continued to be a strong Democrat, I believed in the party and supported
the party and was active in it. I became more and more—and
I've probably said to you this in earlier
sessions—I came more and more to want to identify with people
that I believed, with whom I agreed in terms of
what needed to be done. I now want to find the people who want to help
children in those earliest years get a smart start wherever I find them,
and I want to make common cause with them and work with them. The same
thing in terms of public schools including the very important matter of
standards and accountability and assessing. I strongly disagree with
many people in my party that don't think you ought to test
kids. So I would make common cause with many Republicans on that issue.
But many Democrats understand you have to do that, too. Bush proposed
it. So I just think that and unfortunately I think being too party bound
is a mistake. It means you can't consider other approaches.
It's a mistake that I think the Republicans are making right
now in North Carolina. You're writing about the past, but it
may have some short term benefits. But I think people ought to have a
chance to vote their conscience, vote their mind. I believe these rules
in the house that make it impossible for the majority to prevail or even
be heard. I think they're wrong. I think they're
undemocratic and they're wrong. They're not fair.
I think excessive partisanship can become a real problem.
It's something we have to be aware of and deal with.
- JACK FLEER:
-
In terms of policy issues, the national Democratic Party had certain
platform positions. Even the state Democratic Party had certain platform
positions. Could you name any times when you found yourself in
disagreement with those and believed they were not the positions that
were best for the state of North Carolina.
- JAMES B. HUNT:
-
I can't remember exactly, but I always considered party
platforms to be things that have some value. But to be honest with you
the more extreme elements of the party generally write the platforms.
Some of them would rather write the platform than win an election. So I
always found a number of provisions in my party platform that I
didn't agree with. Gosh the other party
has a lot of positions that their moderate members would not agree with.
Of course after a while you kind of realize people don't pay
any attention to them anyhow. But there was a time that the Democrats
were really hurt by the image that they were so far out liberal and not
in touch with common people and not sharing values with the average man.
My party probably never agreed with me on capital punishment and some of
the tough measures I thought it would take to be certain we
[unclear] . I tried to get my party to favor
some things that I couldn't get them to favor. Things like I
guess at times they didn't support veto and succession and
things like that. But a lot of people do want to support them. So
that's I always found the party platforms to be a real,
should say political problem. People wanted to have them
[unclear] I've given leadership
to the Democratic Party nationally.
- JACK FLEER:
-
I knew that you had worked on some.
- JAMES B. HUNT:
-
[unclear] this past time. I was asked to do
that because they knew me as a moderate and they thought I could
successfully navigate those shoals and come out with a document that was
mainstream as opposed to one the extremists had kind of gotten their
planks in and which would upset average Americans. Party platforms
became something that you had to try to manage and minimize the damage
coming from them.