With the November election inching closer, the Republicans and Democrats are calling all the faithful to prepare for battle. For months, the country has spectated as Republican candidates fought one another like gladiators in a coliseum, uniting only to attack President Obama. The primary process has shown that the rhetoric and plans of the GOP are going to be based on the partisan revanchism typical of our politics. Meanwhile, the Democrats have only begun to lob their anti-Republican attacks. Unfortunately, instead of serving the national interest, these party allegiances have come to hinder progress and stamp out innovation.
For decades, the American electorate has settled for the political status quo, which funnels their votes and opinions into one of two parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats offer a philosophically inconsistent mix of policies, because they restrict some freedoms while advocating others. What makes matters worse is that neither offers solutions to the issues that have been on the table for decades. The War on Drugs has consumed billions of dollars over the past forty years and has led to a drastic increase in incarceration here — not to mention the over fifty thousand lives lost in Mexico's U.S.-backed drug war that was in large part a response to American demand for the drugs on the black market. Yet, both parties have avoided the issue this election cycle, choosing to focus on issues that will get them elected. Another example is their stance on military intervention, which differs only in the type (unilateral or multilateral) that they prefer the U.S. engage in. The current two-party dictatorship has been more of a reactionary force in our politics than anything else. There is no reason the average citizen should support these dysfunctional and outdated institutions.
Another part of the problem is that those who declare allegiance to a particular party tend to alienate anyone in the party that may subscribe to an even slightly different philosophy. The terms "Republicans or Democrats in name only" are examples of this tendency. In other words, our parties attempt to eliminate diversity of opinion through conversion or alienation. Take, for example, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who has been thumping the libertarian bible without fail since he first got involved in politics nearly forty years ago. Because he does not fit into the current notion of what a Republican is, he is excluded and ridiculed by Democrats and Republicans alike. In fact, he would fit among the ranks of a forgotten group of thinkers known as the Old Right. This faction included authors such as Zora Neale Hurston and Robert Frost as well as Senator Robert Taft. Most of Paul's ideas were put into practice during the administration of his favorite president, Grover Cleveland. Still, despite the strong intellectual pedigree of his positions, Ron Paul remains the "kooky uncle" whom the media and Republican establishment consider unelectable. This is the danger of party and collectivism made manifest: Parties and groups accept deference not difference.
If anything, the Republican primaries and Congress' performance have demonstrated the need for a complete overhaul of American democracy. In most democracies, voters disappointed with the status quo would turn to the opposition party, but in America the Democratic Party is not offering a particularly profound message either. What is needed is a multiparty system that would provide more options for voters, matching the diversity of opinion that is ready to develop here. After all, a choice between two similar options is more of a brand choice than a decision to endorse a particular solution.
In a multiparty democracy, intraparty consensus might be more likely as unsatisfied citizens separate to form their own parties, resulting in a variety of viewpoints and plans for the country. Competition for votes would force the parties to formulate substantial and practical solutions as they were intended to. At the same time, coalition between two or more parties is often necessary to pass legislation. If the United States wants to join the many nations that have multiple active parties, then individual thinking and, frankly, courage on the part of the voter are necessary. Attacking partisan gridlock is futile, if we don't support our rhetoric with action. Party, religion, class, ethnicity, serve to bludgeon the last traces of independent identity and thinking out of the average citizen. The result is a populace locked into ruts of partisan thinking, in which policy and opinions are based on personal prejudice and self-interest rather than truth. More often than not, we support a particular party because of the attitude that its representatives convey or the stance it takes on a single issue we are passionate about. How many of those faithful party members have taken the time to read their party's entire platform? An informed electorate that thinks independently would reinvigorate this country's political system.
In the country's first presidential farewell address, George Washington warned the nation of the many pitfalls that the nascent republic ought to avoid. Of partisanship he said, "The alternate domination of one faction over another…is itself a frightful despotism." I encourage my fellow first-time voters to look beyond party, personality, and the idea of electability this coming election. When you go to vote in the elections to come, dare to choose the unconventional candidate, the principled candidate, or the third party candidate.
--
Tyler Agyemang is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
