3 Days and 1700 words later...
Reading Between the (Party) Lines
Why I am not a Registered Democrat
It was with great relish that I mailed off my application for a primary ballot last week. As much as I dislike the conservative political culture of Virginia, I felt immensely thankful to be a registered voter of a state with open primaries. Although I had developed many personal opinions on political issues during my senior year of high school and had registered to vote shortly after my eighteenth birthday, I couldn’t quite bring myself to join the Democratic Party.
I discussed my independent status with several friends from high school recently, all of whom were astonished to hear I hadn’t already started a hunger strike to get Bush out of office. As I became politically aware during my teenage years (an emergence of consciousness rivaled only by that of the worker in Marxist doctrine), several of my more conservative friends would refer to me as a “pinko-commie,” and mere acquaintances would immediately emphasis my liberal stance if Iraq or the name or our esteemed president were mentioned. This surprised me. How, I thought, did people get the idea that I was a loony, bleeding-heart liberal? I looked in the mirror and didn’t see any tattoos, body piercings, or provocative clothing. Never (to my recollection) had I burned an American flag in the courtyard or rallied to end the fascist, neo-Nazi tactics of the school administration. I just didn’t get it - until one day when I stopped, looked around, and realized something. I could read the writing on the wall while everyone else was content to shut their eyes tightly, start humming America the Beautiful and swallow the same old propagandist bull shit that has resurfaced time and time again.
So how could I not join a party that stood for the principles of personal liberty I valued so highly? The answer is simple. I couldn’t in good conscience sell my allegiance lock, stock, and barrel to a party when I didn’t whole-heartedly agree with some major planks in the party platform. Born and raised Catholic, the issue of abortion continues to trouble me greatly. It also seemed common sense that a liberal approach to a problem would not always produce the best outcome or be fiscally feasible. Perhaps because of this rational view of politics, I am always annoyed when brilliant politicians steadfastly stick to a party line when their efforts are the equivalent of Al Sharpton remaining in the race to the Democratic nomination.
Indeed, the party politics of the national level often result in the kind of spitball tactics employed by delinquent youths on the playground. This is never more apparent than during the annual State of the Union address. As the respected members of Congress take their seats, the physical, political barrier of the aisle creates a rigid division. President Bush’s outpouring of gratitude to Congress and his appeal for “bipartisan effort” is comical as the cameras scan the chamber throughout the speech. I have always found the televised speech infinitely superior to the transcript, if only because C-SPAN allows me to play a game I enjoy called “Who’s Clapping Now.” The rules are so simple that any trained Bush lackey could play. First of all, you divide the people playing into two teams: the “Donkeys” and the “Elephants.” Then you take out a piece of paper and keep tally of how many times your representative animal of choice stands up to applaud. To give you some idea of how this works, I’ll provide a play-by-play commentary of this year’s game.
The first topic to come to the plate is Iraq…and the Elephants have it by a landslide! Next up is the No Child Left Behind Act - another knock-out winner by the E’s. Ah, now here’s a tricky one, tax relief. It could go either way, here we go…the E team bunts it and makes it to first base. Wait, the coach is switching out pitchers. It looks like “economy” is written all over that ball. The Elephants put their heavy-hitter G. “Dubya” Bush up to the plate. The bases are loaded. A hush falls over the crowd as the pitcher winds up the swing. He hits it! It’s going, going, gone - over the fence, homerun! Grand slam - what a play! But now the D’s are up to bat…will they be able to compete with the incredible play made by the Dubster? Wait, what’s this? The umpire is saying something. I could be mistaken, but I believe he’s saying “Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.” That’s it! All plays by the E’s don’t mean a thing! The roar of the crowd is deafening. What a game, ladies and gentleman, what a game....
If the feeding frenzy of insider politics at the heart of Washington appears ridiculous, take a drive out to the country and witness the supposed grass-roots movements of independent groups there. While the differences that separate the left from the right in Congress may seem petty, they are by no means twin parties with different names. Sorry, Nader. I may not be a zoologist, but a Donkey is not an Elephant and an Elephant is not a Donkey. This obvious fact was not explained to Nader before he gave a speech at Amherst College in October 2000, saying: “The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference…The two parties ... are becoming one corporate party, with two heads wearing different makeup, and that is not a good enough choice for the American people.” In saying this, Nader was unequivocally wrong. The Republican and Democratic parties are fundamentally opposed on a wide array of issues, ranging from foreign policy to health care to gay rights. Although I do agree that our two leading parties are fast becoming incestuous beds of political intrigue, I equally believe that Nader’s beloved Green Party would also develop the foibles of the Republican and Democratic parties were it to become a legitimate competitor in national elections.
I mention Nader, because I want to show the type of independent voter that I am not. There are real issues at stake, and while politicians may have more hands in corporate accounts than Michael Jackson does in boys’ pants, this doesn’t detract from the differing ideologies of the two parties. Voters are given the choice between Party A and Party B. The question then becomes how do people choose their figurative poison? For those Americans without an active interest in politics, the answer is largely hereditary. Children learn from their parents as they seek to define the world. During their teenage years, children search for identity in the common quest of ‘finding oneself.’ The easiest way of doing this is to attach labels to one’s name. Typically, children either rebel against their parents and swing to the other side of the spectrum or accept their parents’ word as gospel. No matter what side of the fence young adults choose, nametags that say “HELLO MY NAME IS Republican” are simply too convenient in streamlining debates. At any impasse, the participants can simply point to their different party loyalties and leave it at that. This kind of attitude toward politics stifles the free discourse critical to a democracy.
Even more dangerous than passive acceptance of dear, old dad’s party is the complete and blind loyalty to a set of principles set forth by a party. Babies aren’t born either Republican or Democratic; they are born with the ability to think and to reason. Why toss aside this gift of self-determination in favor of regurgitating arguments previously formulated? I urge all people, regardless of race, creed, political orientation, to think! The danger of being an ideologue is that one’s vision becomes slightly skewed. Like the shadows in Plato’s cave, they don’t see the world as it really is. Consequently, I find partisan rallies geared solely toward the promotion of a party name immensely troubling. This isn’t to say that all partisan bodies are inherently bad. Organizations such as UDems and College Republicans on grounds serve to mobilize young voters and encourage political participation. The danger lies in saying “I’m a Democrat, so this is how I think” and not “This is how I think, so I’m a Democrat.” Such an approach drives the venomous literature of the Howard Sterns of political commentary. My personal favorites include Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right and Ann Coulter’s Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. This kind of cookie-cutter representation of the opposition perpetuates the lemming approach of many Americans to politics.
It was the hope of many Founding Fathers that this nation would remain united against the faction caused by parties. In 1787, James Madision wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that “the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” George Washington echoed this call for a nonpartisan government in his Farewell Address in 1796. Despite the high aims the Federalists had for our nation, America had a different future in mind. As Madison and Washington articulated, it is in human nature to organize into competing groups. Although we can’t prevent this from happening, we can refrain from the blanket attacks of one party on another.
As I followed the Democratic primary race the past several months, I was surprised by the overwhelming sentiment that Bush had already won the election. For a man who barely succeeded in getting to the White House in the 2000 election, he seems to have already cemented his hold on the Oval Office in the eyes of the American people. I realized that the only hope the opposition has in battling the incumbent is to present a unified front. The fracture of the Democratic Party into smaller (and generally more liberal) independent parties only splits the vote in favor of the Republicans. The plight of Independent voters is to fall through the cracks, becoming the dimpled chads of election history. Therefore, while I do not consider myself a member of the Democratic Party, I recognize the party as a necessary tool in uprooting the Bush. Acknowledging this, I just can’t shake the fear that parties will resort to Machiavellian principles while forgetting the reason for their existence. May we always remember that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - not the parties.
Why I am not a Registered Democrat
It was with great relish that I mailed off my application for a primary ballot last week. As much as I dislike the conservative political culture of Virginia, I felt immensely thankful to be a registered voter of a state with open primaries. Although I had developed many personal opinions on political issues during my senior year of high school and had registered to vote shortly after my eighteenth birthday, I couldn’t quite bring myself to join the Democratic Party.
I discussed my independent status with several friends from high school recently, all of whom were astonished to hear I hadn’t already started a hunger strike to get Bush out of office. As I became politically aware during my teenage years (an emergence of consciousness rivaled only by that of the worker in Marxist doctrine), several of my more conservative friends would refer to me as a “pinko-commie,” and mere acquaintances would immediately emphasis my liberal stance if Iraq or the name or our esteemed president were mentioned. This surprised me. How, I thought, did people get the idea that I was a loony, bleeding-heart liberal? I looked in the mirror and didn’t see any tattoos, body piercings, or provocative clothing. Never (to my recollection) had I burned an American flag in the courtyard or rallied to end the fascist, neo-Nazi tactics of the school administration. I just didn’t get it - until one day when I stopped, looked around, and realized something. I could read the writing on the wall while everyone else was content to shut their eyes tightly, start humming America the Beautiful and swallow the same old propagandist bull shit that has resurfaced time and time again.
So how could I not join a party that stood for the principles of personal liberty I valued so highly? The answer is simple. I couldn’t in good conscience sell my allegiance lock, stock, and barrel to a party when I didn’t whole-heartedly agree with some major planks in the party platform. Born and raised Catholic, the issue of abortion continues to trouble me greatly. It also seemed common sense that a liberal approach to a problem would not always produce the best outcome or be fiscally feasible. Perhaps because of this rational view of politics, I am always annoyed when brilliant politicians steadfastly stick to a party line when their efforts are the equivalent of Al Sharpton remaining in the race to the Democratic nomination.
Indeed, the party politics of the national level often result in the kind of spitball tactics employed by delinquent youths on the playground. This is never more apparent than during the annual State of the Union address. As the respected members of Congress take their seats, the physical, political barrier of the aisle creates a rigid division. President Bush’s outpouring of gratitude to Congress and his appeal for “bipartisan effort” is comical as the cameras scan the chamber throughout the speech. I have always found the televised speech infinitely superior to the transcript, if only because C-SPAN allows me to play a game I enjoy called “Who’s Clapping Now.” The rules are so simple that any trained Bush lackey could play. First of all, you divide the people playing into two teams: the “Donkeys” and the “Elephants.” Then you take out a piece of paper and keep tally of how many times your representative animal of choice stands up to applaud. To give you some idea of how this works, I’ll provide a play-by-play commentary of this year’s game.
The first topic to come to the plate is Iraq…and the Elephants have it by a landslide! Next up is the No Child Left Behind Act - another knock-out winner by the E’s. Ah, now here’s a tricky one, tax relief. It could go either way, here we go…the E team bunts it and makes it to first base. Wait, the coach is switching out pitchers. It looks like “economy” is written all over that ball. The Elephants put their heavy-hitter G. “Dubya” Bush up to the plate. The bases are loaded. A hush falls over the crowd as the pitcher winds up the swing. He hits it! It’s going, going, gone - over the fence, homerun! Grand slam - what a play! But now the D’s are up to bat…will they be able to compete with the incredible play made by the Dubster? Wait, what’s this? The umpire is saying something. I could be mistaken, but I believe he’s saying “Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.” That’s it! All plays by the E’s don’t mean a thing! The roar of the crowd is deafening. What a game, ladies and gentleman, what a game....
If the feeding frenzy of insider politics at the heart of Washington appears ridiculous, take a drive out to the country and witness the supposed grass-roots movements of independent groups there. While the differences that separate the left from the right in Congress may seem petty, they are by no means twin parties with different names. Sorry, Nader. I may not be a zoologist, but a Donkey is not an Elephant and an Elephant is not a Donkey. This obvious fact was not explained to Nader before he gave a speech at Amherst College in October 2000, saying: “The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference…The two parties ... are becoming one corporate party, with two heads wearing different makeup, and that is not a good enough choice for the American people.” In saying this, Nader was unequivocally wrong. The Republican and Democratic parties are fundamentally opposed on a wide array of issues, ranging from foreign policy to health care to gay rights. Although I do agree that our two leading parties are fast becoming incestuous beds of political intrigue, I equally believe that Nader’s beloved Green Party would also develop the foibles of the Republican and Democratic parties were it to become a legitimate competitor in national elections.
I mention Nader, because I want to show the type of independent voter that I am not. There are real issues at stake, and while politicians may have more hands in corporate accounts than Michael Jackson does in boys’ pants, this doesn’t detract from the differing ideologies of the two parties. Voters are given the choice between Party A and Party B. The question then becomes how do people choose their figurative poison? For those Americans without an active interest in politics, the answer is largely hereditary. Children learn from their parents as they seek to define the world. During their teenage years, children search for identity in the common quest of ‘finding oneself.’ The easiest way of doing this is to attach labels to one’s name. Typically, children either rebel against their parents and swing to the other side of the spectrum or accept their parents’ word as gospel. No matter what side of the fence young adults choose, nametags that say “HELLO MY NAME IS Republican” are simply too convenient in streamlining debates. At any impasse, the participants can simply point to their different party loyalties and leave it at that. This kind of attitude toward politics stifles the free discourse critical to a democracy.
Even more dangerous than passive acceptance of dear, old dad’s party is the complete and blind loyalty to a set of principles set forth by a party. Babies aren’t born either Republican or Democratic; they are born with the ability to think and to reason. Why toss aside this gift of self-determination in favor of regurgitating arguments previously formulated? I urge all people, regardless of race, creed, political orientation, to think! The danger of being an ideologue is that one’s vision becomes slightly skewed. Like the shadows in Plato’s cave, they don’t see the world as it really is. Consequently, I find partisan rallies geared solely toward the promotion of a party name immensely troubling. This isn’t to say that all partisan bodies are inherently bad. Organizations such as UDems and College Republicans on grounds serve to mobilize young voters and encourage political participation. The danger lies in saying “I’m a Democrat, so this is how I think” and not “This is how I think, so I’m a Democrat.” Such an approach drives the venomous literature of the Howard Sterns of political commentary. My personal favorites include Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right and Ann Coulter’s Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. This kind of cookie-cutter representation of the opposition perpetuates the lemming approach of many Americans to politics.
It was the hope of many Founding Fathers that this nation would remain united against the faction caused by parties. In 1787, James Madision wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that “the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” George Washington echoed this call for a nonpartisan government in his Farewell Address in 1796. Despite the high aims the Federalists had for our nation, America had a different future in mind. As Madison and Washington articulated, it is in human nature to organize into competing groups. Although we can’t prevent this from happening, we can refrain from the blanket attacks of one party on another.
As I followed the Democratic primary race the past several months, I was surprised by the overwhelming sentiment that Bush had already won the election. For a man who barely succeeded in getting to the White House in the 2000 election, he seems to have already cemented his hold on the Oval Office in the eyes of the American people. I realized that the only hope the opposition has in battling the incumbent is to present a unified front. The fracture of the Democratic Party into smaller (and generally more liberal) independent parties only splits the vote in favor of the Republicans. The plight of Independent voters is to fall through the cracks, becoming the dimpled chads of election history. Therefore, while I do not consider myself a member of the Democratic Party, I recognize the party as a necessary tool in uprooting the Bush. Acknowledging this, I just can’t shake the fear that parties will resort to Machiavellian principles while forgetting the reason for their existence. May we always remember that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - not the parties.