Taking the Parties out of Politics

Initially, I was going to write a little about the debate between the distinguished gentleman from Delaware and the Governor of Don’t-Have-Sex-But-If-Someone-Rapes-You-Be-Sure-To-Have-The-Baby. However, that story is already guaranteed to dominate the next news cycle, so I have decided to spare everyone the trouble of reliving it here¹.

[1. Worth noting is the unofficial total of M-words* used tonight, which appears to be seven; five from Governor Unqualified-Yet-Not-Disqualified, and two from Senator Delaware.]

[*For a more complete discussion of the M-word please see my previous post "McCain Loses Debate and Dignity; National Discourse Just Loses"]

Contrary to appearances, it was never my intention to have a political blog. I don’t even really like politics. I like the philosophies behind systems of government, and enjoy seeing how personal philosophies can clash in the national debate, but I don’t care for party affiliations. Most of this is due to the fact that neither party has gotten it right yet, nor do they actually represent most Americans. While one may be mostly Democrat or mostly Republican in his beliefs, it is unlikely that the entire platform of either group speaks to his values. What political parties are best at is giving people another arbitrary justification for believing irrational things. Christians tend to vote for Republican candidates because the party platform panders to their religious beliefs and eliminates their need to consider the ramifications of various political actions. Similarly, homosexuals tend to vote for Democratic candidates because they perceive Republicans as intolerant of changing social norms, and believe the Democratic platform is more open to their participation.

This voting methodology isn’t entirely incorrect, but it lacks elements crucial to any decision making process. Philosophically you could argue that Platform X better suits your values than Platform Z, but that argument doesn’t justify voting in a given way. It is merely the course of action we have been left, the path of least resistance in a system we have been taught only allows binary choices. Our system of politicking is fallacious. It implies that conservatives are best served by voting Republican in every election, regardless of where the country is metaphorically headed².

[2. An adaptation of this line of reasoning explains why I wouldn't vote for Senator McCain this year, but would have in 2000, and why I likely won't vote for Senator Clinton in 2016, though I would have this year (with reservations). Every presidential election happens against the backdrop of a nation with ever-shifting problems and priorities. This year calls for a more liberal approach to politics, because the extreme conservatism of past years has left the nation out of balance. In eight years it is unlikely that this will still be true, and a liberal candidate like Senator Clinton will no longer be the best person for the job.]

The lie behind this line of reasoning is clear when we consider the example of a country where the Republican party wins every presidential and congressional election during a forty year span. That isn’t a republic, it’s a monarchy, and it doesn’t serve the best interest of American citizens. The knock against Democrats is they are too liberal, charge ahead too quickly, and effectively force the culture of the United States to change before the majority of people are prepared. Conversely, the knock against Republicans is they are too conservative, their values are antiquated, and their slow approach to cultural reforms often delays changes that Americans desire. In the first case, forty years of victory would leave this country imperiled because liberal politicians would have no choice but to “out liberal” one another. Necessitating the platform move so far left as to be unrecognizable. In the second, forty years of conservative politics leaves us with no place left to regress. Are we going to go back in time, remove women from the workforce, repeal Roe v. Wade, and completely eliminate taxes? How many tax breaks can a party give if no one ever raises them back to previous levels?

This is the absurdity of American Politics. Whereas in a parliamentary democracy, the voters are always trying to strike a balance of many diverse groups which fairly accurately represent the populace, our republic requires us to vote along party lines, supporting people with whom we have nothing in common because it is the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, this is the only system we have, which necessitates our participation, and leaves only the question of how we can most responsibly fulfill that obligation. The easy answer is we all need to be more informed about (and more critical of) our candidates. It is incredibly unlikely that we will see other political parties rise to prominence and share the national stage, but we can create the same effect of options by ignoring party affiliations and utilizing a different system of evaluation for those seeking office.

There is a style of advertising that is generally used for products which have a great deal of competition in the marketplace, but without much variety. Rather than try to make the case that their product is superior because of an unique property, these companies highlight an option or quality that all of their competitors have, while acting as though it is unique. Aquafina runs ads telling you that drinking their product will result in you feeling better than if you drank a soda. This is equally true of Dasani and Evian, but the ad campaign is designed to focus your attention away from the other brands, causing your mind to process the information as “drinking Aquafina makes me feel better” rather than “drinking water makes me feel better.” Political campaigns are much the same.

Taking the system back requires us to get past some preconceived ideas which govern the way we perceive political problems. When Republicans campaign on the fact that they will keep you safe from terrorism, it is easier to vote for them and defend the decision on grounds that you would never endanger your family, than take a step back and say “Am I supposed to believe that the Democrats don’t want to keep my family safe?” In this light it is clear that national security cannot be a political issue because it is a value shared by all people in a given nation. There is no scenario where one candidate wants a safe country and the other wants a dangerous country. This being the case, opinions on national security should carry very little importance in how we vote. It seems counterintuitive that something so large as the defense of a nation is of only mild importance, but it’s true, and recognizing the real differences between candidates is crucial to the solution of using a weighted system for evaluating how different each candidate’s values are from our own.

Going forward, this concept of taking back our political system through use of reason and logic becomes a bit muddled, but shouldn’t be unnecessarily complicated. I certainly don’t advise anyone’s system be even as complicated as what I am about to use in my example; however, I have no choice but to use a rigid framework for purposes of explanation.

If we take major political issues currently facing the United States and put them in a table we would have something which starts like this:

In this example we have a person who tends to be conservative, please bear in mind that the net values of each issue should vary from voter to voter. The maximum net value is five, meaning if two candidates are polar opposites that category has a value of five, while issues they only mildly disagree on are valued at one. If the voter in our example was only concerned with these four categories, she would be leaning toward Obama, provided new information did not emerge about the candidates’ positions on these topics.

[3. Here national security is only worth one point because our voter believes John McCain will take action to keep America safer from outside aggression on domestic soil than Barack Obama, but isn't certifiably insane, and recognizes Obama does not desire a terrorist attack, nor want her family to suffer. In this particular case abortion is valued at three, though without Palin on the ticket, it is probably only a one or two. Both McCain and Obama support limits on abortion, and neither has supported criminalizing it. McCain did say he believes life starts at conception during a church forum, but never indicated that to be his belief prior to this campaign. However, Palin believes that abortion should be criminalized even in cases of rape and incest, making it a more divergent issue and pushing its value to three.]

However, if this voter becomes interested in other aspects of our present political climate, loyalties may change:

Here we see this individual hasn’t taken a science course recently and believes global warming to be an unproven hypothesis, rather than a proven theory. She is concerned her husband’s job building automobiles will be jeopardized if Senator Obama is allowed to institute his environmental reforms. Because McCain and Obama are nearly opposite on this issue, it is valued at four, and swings her vote to McCain despite her general approval for Obama’s plan to push for new energy technologies and avoid drilling in protected wildlife conservatories (perhaps her husband’s plant makes E85 ethanol vehicles and she knows McCain has voted against the subsidy each time it came up).

Let’s assume that as the election progresses the unbelievable happens and our economy begins to collapse, while our voter becomes more interested in Federalism after hearing Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. The new chart looks something like this for her:

Apparently, our voter realizes that McCain was in favor of every deregulation bill that came through the Senate on his watch, and still supports deregulation of the healthcare industry, while Obama has a history of supporting responsible oversight. Furthermore, she has learned that McCain is in favor of letting states decide certain controversial issues independent of the federal government, but worries Obama will expand the government slightly with his new healthcare plan. The new chart of nine categories shows that without a major change in the national issues before Election Day this conservative should actually vote for Obama⁴.

[4. Unless she thinks supporting a party is more important than supporting her beliefs.]

Certainly, there will be cases where people who have long thought of themselves as Democrats will end up supporting McCain, and many more instances where people of each party find that every issue is in “their” candidate’s column, reinforcing what they’ve always believed. However, evaluating our individual beliefs is important for other reasons. It allows us to take a divided nation and move toward common ground. Your neighbor who supports Obama need not be thought stupid because only John McCain can protect you from terrorism. Likewise, McCain supporters need not be denigrated for supporting rampant greed on Wall Street.

I would argue that we all use a system similar to the one illustrated above without realizing it. The evaluations happen very rapidly, and our opinion takes shape with enough speed that we never need write anything down. Where we generally fail is by assuming those evaluations are foolproof, and have not been influenced by preconceived ideas such as “Democrats raise taxes,” or by choosing to watch media because it reinforces our opinions instead of challenging them⁵. Furthermore, we tend to assume that each issue is of equal importance from election to election, when the state of our nation should actively modify the approaches we support. With the state of our deficit, tax cuts for any income bracket except those below the poverty line may not be the best idea. This year economic collapse has perhaps necessitated lower taxation continue, but if our economy were strong, we would be fools to not support increased taxation (along with lower spending) to reduce the deficit.

[5. This is a large problem in its own right, and I've already gone on too long, but much of this has to do with the rise of talk radio and cable news. For how the advent of both has affected the national discourse, please see part 2 of "Why the United States are now only America".]

Regardless of what your political beliefs are, it is incredibly important that we stop looking at party affiliations and start looking at the actual platform of those we support. To do otherwise only strengthens the existing system and propagates the idea that a binary political system accurately represents our individual philosophies – both of which eventually lead to ruin.

Back to Main Page

See Recent Posts