Political Boxes

When and how did it come to this? I suppose it just evolved with the increasing polarization: more divisive people, more intolerant people.

But I do understand--even if I was self-blinkered to the realities for a long time. And I still appreciate the balancing, centering way the political process often appears to work: a two-party system, or two dominating, each professing acceptance of the same societal and political values—freedom, equality, representative democracy, opportunity and justice—while representing differing views along the continuum of each. The power, the advantages of it are both instinctively and empirically clear. I know the mantra well: whatever its failings, it’s better than whatever is in second place.

It seems more wish or whimsy now, for I don’t fully accept that tidy package anymore. Perhaps it once was true, but I doubt that, too. I don’t want to belong to those political parties anymore. Not Republican. Not Democrat. And certainly not the political religious crowd, either—whatever their affiliation, wherever they fall on issues. And I don’t want any political labels, please. Not conservative. Not liberal. They’re inadequate, misleading and divisive.

They’re half the story claiming to know it all. They’re half the questions claiming all the answers. They’re a half-way effort claiming complete success. They’re about winning and imposing their will, not governing. They’re about evading responsibility, or placing it on others. They’re about political “spin” and legerdemain. They do not allow for political, cultural or social accomodation, not really. Solving problems and serving people is what they talk about, not what they do. They're insulting to my intelligence and values, and yours. Republicans, Democrats, both.

They say many things, inconsistent things. They’ll say almost anything, it seems, to get me to nod my head and pull the voting lever in their direction—to cast my lot with them and their party. And they just keep saying the same things again and again, ignoring the challenges and charges, as though consistency and persistence trump facts, honesty and reason, as though I am too stupid or distracted to notice. So, why is it, again, that I would want to associate with either party—the one which never forgets but is mired in the past, and doesn’t want to change; or the other, which does not appear to hear (or want to) and obstinately refuses to grow and move forward? They don’t want to listen to me, not really. And they don’t want to include me, either. They just want my vote and the right to claim mandate for imposing their agenda on me.

Rather than consult and invite more inclusive efforts, rather than build or support broader community, rather than seek common ground or common cause, rather than entertain the thought that there might be a better answer, they have too often, too precipitously acted or refrained too long from acting—for personal and political advantage: position, power, control. They have compromised the heart and will, the moral and ethical solvency of who we are. They placed us in harms way, and now they blithely place our children there, too.

And then they spin-and-sell, spin-and-sell, brooking no comment or argument or questioning of their acts, rationalizing as they go why it is our duty—our patriotic duty—to believe that they are acting in our best interest. It all has devolved, degenerated into thinly veiled political manipulation and propaganda, into rank political opportunism. What they want is control at our expense, at our peril, and that of our children. And I distrust and disrespect them for it.

Their boxes should come with warnings. Not only do I want out, I want to warn others out, as well. And however less stable or less centering it may be, I want to rethink the advantages of a functioning, inclusive multi-party system, maybe a parliamentary approach, something—and I recommend that others rethink it, too. It’s time to concede—then celebrate—the fact that we have become a country of diverse peoples with diverse interests, representing diverse cultures and values. Two parties can’t contain us any more (if they ever could)—not and be truly representative, not with the capacity to reach for new answers, accommodate differing interests, make compromises, govern all by representing all. I’d gladly take less stability if it meant the expression, consideration and vitality of more ideas and views, more possibilities and answers. I’d gladly take less centering if it meant that all parties and represented views will have to work more openly, diligently, honestly together to form viable, accountable coalitions to govern.

The merits of all interests and positions should be openly, fully heard, challenged and defended. Their appeal and continued viability, strength and contribution, should be only as enduring as the legitimacy of the interest served, the solvency of the ideas, the practicality of their implementation, and the flexibility and good faith of the divers parties working together. We could fashion a system with a process that better represents and serves us all—if we really wanted to.

First written: January – June 2005
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007