Crash the parties!
George Washington was right. Political parties have not only tainted our nation, but stained the whole concept of democracy as well. The most basic translation of democracy is that it allows us to freely choose our government officials from a list of possible candidates. But with political parties dominating our nation's ideals, the process of voting is not so much a choice as it is an ultimatum. Sure, you can always write in a candidate, but realistically, few write-in campaigns have ever proved advantageous.
The whole idea of political parties is insipid to begin with. Doesn't it violate a human's individualistic spirit for them to be forced to align themselves with a previously conceived set of beliefs and principles? Very few humans that I've ever met nursed ideals that strictly conformed to any party. Yet those who are heavy supporters of a certain party are reprimanded when they go against the preachings of their party's platform. And doesn't the whole idea of being labeled according to one's ideology seem a lot like a totalitarian concept in the first place?
What's worse, however, than the concept of political parties is America's unquestioning acceptance of the oppressive two-party system. I had always intended on registering as a Democrat, but with the many developments during the Clinton era, it seemed as if "Republicans" came to mean those on the far right and "Democrats" were only an inch or so to the left. But I was appalled last year when I indicated a specific party on my voter registration form, only for the card to come back in a few weeks having me registered as an "independent." Independent?! That could mean anything! The only thing the vast many independent parties have in common is the fact that they are thorns in the side of the status quo. I feel it to be a gross violation of my civil liberties to be registered to vote under a party other than that I specified. Although the lines between both parties have become so blurry that they're virtually indistinguishable, think of the heat the bureaucrats would take if a Democrat was, by some kind of error, registered as a Republican, or vice versa!
America has become so accustomed to the two-party system that we scoff at the idea of those who run for office as a member of anything other than the two major parties. In today's world, if someone as charismatic and idealistic as FDR or Lincoln ran for office under a third party, he'd probably be largely ignored by both the media and the voters. Some may cite Jesse Ventura, the governor of Minnesota, as proof that an Independent can rise to prominence in the two-party system. But Ventura's anomaly sadly had more to do with his star power than his political affiliations. Nothing whets America's whistle more than a celebrity gaining political power.
What can be done to stop this political epidemic? After much thought, I've come up with a radical idea that will ultimately allow for a free exchange of ideas from every millimeter of the political spectrum. Throw out all political parties! That's right, complete and total abolition of the concept. It's a 200 year-old system that's proven to be outdated and economically costly. After all, wouldn't Congress be a much more beautiful sight to behold if it weren't divided among partisan lines? C-SPAN would become entertaining because you could never guess how the delegates were going to vote.
Am I off my rocker to present such an idealistic approach? Probably, but I figure anything that can remedy the plague of partisan politics is worth a shot. How would those who are so uninformed that they vote strictly along party lines manage in this new system? It's simple. The bureaucratic party employees use monies originally set aside for the unnecessary convention galas for something practical. Take for example, the presidential race. The first 30 candidates to file all official documents to declare their candidacy are profiled in unbiased pamphlets mailed to the homes of every registered voter. These profiles would contain brief biographical information and the candidate's stance on key issues. Then, all voters (even those previously thought of as "Independent") would be able to vote in the primaries, and the five candidates who garner the most votes there emerge to the final round. Finally, in mid-October, a new pamphlet would be sent describing in detail the major policies and practices that each of the five finalists would put in place if elected. And whoever won the traditional early November election would win the executive office. As for lesser elections, such as Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial, etc., would follow the same process, only on a much smaller scale. The money that would be saved by forgoing mudslinging political ads and partisan-sponsored events would be grand. And if the government needs to raise taxes on the wealthiest 25 percent of Americans to bring us one step closer to Utopia, so be it.
Wouldn't this preposterous idea decrease voter turnout? Probably not. The same information provided in the pamphlets would be available through special programming on television and radio, numerous televised debates and the Internet, which through a government-run site will display all necessary info in both text and audio files. But doesn't this make our government more unnecessarily bureaucratic? Perhaps, but isn't this bureaucratic institution a lot more desirable than the previous bureaucratic institutions of the Democratic and Republican National Committee?
The plan to end all political parties is not foolproof. It has kinks that will take political consultants and lawyers years to work out. In the long run, wouldn't it be worth the trouble if it meant ending partisan favoritism?
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782