The Power of Perception and the Impact of Collective Identity

In the chapter “Partisanship and Independence,” Rosenblum presents some very interesting conceptions on the ways in which American society as a whole and political and intellectual communities within the country conceive the differences between and the impacts of partisans and independents. First, Rosenblum works to establish working definitions of independents, partisans, and parties. Then, Rosenblum continues to argue that the term “independent” has a very positive moral association connected with it. Typically, independents are viewed as free thinkers who make deliberative considerations of and decisions on political issues and their impacts. They cannot be bought or swayed by partisanship or the leanings of party platforms. The issue that political titles, partisanship, and parties are so closely linked with one’s moral fortitude and strength seems rather bizarre to me. Although I understand Rosenblum’s point and believe that she is correct, the moral association between a citizen and their political classification seems way off the mark. Serious work needs to be done to alter the American perception of the moral implications of being a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

Another issue that I found particularly interesting from Rosenblum’s piece was the issue of identity. Rosenblum compares a partisan’s conception of identity with an independent’s conception of identity. Ultimately, Rosenblum asserts that independents do not have a sense of collective identity. That is to say, independents operate in their own self interest, separate from partisanship and, apparently, party platforms. However, I wonder if this is really the case. Do independents really not feel a connection with other independents? Is there really no substantive link between citizens and voters who are “antipartisanship” (as Rosenblum asserts)? Although I believe that the individual vote is very powerful, there is a lot to be said about the force of voters who have a common link and collective identity. Yes, parties and partisanship may contribute to rigid ideas and standards; however, the ability of parties to mobilize voters behind a cause has to be reckoned with by Independents.

Aside from the content of Rosenblum’s piece, I have a few concerns dealing with style and the greater implications style can have on Americans in the political sphere. Although Rosenblum’s introduction and chapter on the value and underestimated impact of parties and partisanship was very persuasive and engaging, I do not completely agree with all the points highlighted in the reading. In my mind, Rosenblum’s style and writing talent exemplifies a serious issue that deals with more topics than the one covered in the reading. Ultimately, readers can become easily captivated by rhetoric and writing technique. Throughout the introduction and specifically in “Partisanship and Independence,” Rosenblum played the victim card for the cause of parties and partisans. I am not insinuating that the points Rosenblum raises are not valid; however, I do think that there is a problem with the ways that media outlets-- namely newspapers, political internet forums, and television—manipulate and spin facts to their advantage. There is nothing wrong with persuasion, yet too often, the average American can be swayed by the rhetoric and not the facts.