Rosen: The 'nonpartisan' sham

Published October 20, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

I got an e-mail recently from someone who asked if I could direct him to a Web site or some other source for objective, nonpartisan analysis of candidates and election issues. I told him no such oracle existed. "Nonpartisan" is surely the most overused and deceptive term in politics. It's supposed to indicate neutrality and independence from any particular political party. I might even suggest objectivity. But objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. We are, each of us, the product of our experiences, perceptions, values, beliefs and, yes, biases. None of us is capable of objectivity.

Some use the term "nonpartisan" as a cloaking device to disguise an agenda or ideology. I cringe when I hear politically committed think tanks described as "nonpartisan." They may not be officially linked to the Democratic or Republican Party, but that doesn't mean they aren't intellectually aligned with one or the other.

In Colorado, the Bell Policy Center may not be an official arm of the Democratic Party, but it is liberal through and through, and has a rooting interest in getting Democrats elected as the vehicle for converting its ideology into public policy. Similarly, the Independence Institute's conservative/libertarian agenda is geared toward Republicans.

Nonpartisan, therefore, doesn't mean nonpolitical and it certainly doesn't mean non-ideological. Now, don't get me wrong, I like ideology. That term combines two of my favorite things: ideas and logic. I'm both ideological and partisan. I just don't like it when people or organizations are deceptive about such things.

Maybe you've heard a political ad running on the radio by AARP. It starts with what's supposed to be a clever attention grabber. Personally, I find it annoying and stupid. A chorus of voices admonishes you: "Don't vote. Don't vote." The punch line is that you're not supposed to vote until you've become sufficiently informed by going to the AARP Web site to be suitably indoctrinated with its "objective" assessment of the candidates and issues. AARP, of course, is officially "nonpartisan," but it's certainly not impartial. Its agenda is decidedly collectivist and liberal, and its political fortunes are invested with the Democratic Party.

Another paragon of "nonpartisanship" is the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union. This is the local affiliate of the "nonpartisan" National Education Association, which each four years tops all other special-interest groups with the largest contingent of delegates to the Democratic National Convention. In its endorsements of Colorado congressional candidates this year, the CEA went seven-for-seven with Democrats. For the state legislature, 57 of 61 endorsements went to Democrats. The CEA's campaign contributions fit a similar pattern. Conveniently, they'll find a handful of squishy Republicans who oppose school choice, competition and vouchers. A token GOP endorsement here and there, a few crumbs to their campaign coffers and - presto! - the CEA is "nonpartisan."

Then, there's The Denver Post. Over the last couple of weeks we've been treated to the Post's bi-annual charade of legislative endorsements. The Post is also "nonpartisan." Now, there's little doubt from Post editorials and from the liberal spin in so many of its "news" stories that the journalists who work there favor Democrats and Democratic policies. But they have to play the game. A scorecard like the CEA's, with Democrats getting more than 90 percent of the endorsements, would be a bit obvious. There'd be little value, then, in a Post endorsement. So the Post spreads it around, making sure to endorse Republicans mainly in districts where a Republican victory is already assured.

Nonetheless, the Post favored Democrats in 31 of 53 contested races for the Colorado House, with 10 Democrats and two Republicans running unopposed. In the Senate, it was Democrats in 10 out of 16, with two other Democrats running unopposed. This would expand the Democratic majority in both bodies.

But the Post outdid itself in its endorsements for the U.S. House. In Congressional District 1, superliberal Diana DeGette has no Republican opponent. If there were one, DeGette would surely have gotten the Post's endorsement. In the other six congressional races, the Post endorsed five Democrats. To avoid a GOP shutout, the Post had to come up with a token Republican. But Districts 3 and 7 are close contests, and in Districts 4 and 5, usually GOP strongholds, Democrats may actually have a chance this year. So the Post, incredibly, took a few moments off from its ceaseless hammering of Tom Tancredo to actually endorse him in the 6th Congressional District. Why? Because they had to endorse at least one Republican and Tancredo is a lock for re-election. Now, I love Tom, and I endorse him without reservation. But the Post can't stand him. This is all so transparent. Have they no shame? Apparently not.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News