How'd We Get Here

Jack Laird

2.5.20

---

As I watched the tally of the House’s vote on Article I of the impeachment trial crawl its way up to 214, I realized something about the drawbacks of partisanship. Our government has devolved into a rotted-out, dysfunctional, rusted-out shell of what the constitution describes its design as. I watched one, ONE, a Republican vote for an article that alleged a complete abuse of power committed by the most powerful man in the world. Has this government, which was based upon the idea of the betterment of the Nation, become so self-centered, so self -interested, and so self-indulgent that the very notion of going against one’s party is on par with that of treason? By the way, that singular Republican changed his vote. On top of this absurdity, a democratic representative was interviewed simply because his decision to vote against the articles of impeachment was SO outrageous for a traditional Democrat. For reference, he was one of two to vote “nay” on the first article. In my last editorial, I described the dangers of treating members of opposing parties as sub-human. But on this, the 18th night of December at the epilogue of the decade, I will describe to you how we got here in the first place.

---

George Washington feared the very system we have now - where political parties dominate; where the representatives of those parties abuse the very existence and institution of these groups to gain power; where the people who are being represented have a cult-like ideal of ignorance and following to avoid the horrid idea of actually educating themselves on the candidate for whom they are voting. Let’s break this down even further.

Our first stop on the Failing Democracy Mainline is Complacency Station. Complacency is the biggest issue that has infected this nation’s people as of late. We’ve relied on the existence of political parties to inform us about who we’re voting for rather than actually learning about the candidate. Oh? This doesn’t sound like you? When was the last time you heard a candidate’s name and your first question wasn’t, “Are they a Democrat or Republican?” I mean, God forbid that the people of this nation should care about who gets their vote. Whether we like it or not, the partisan nature of this union affects all of us in some way, shape, or form - namely, the blissful ignorance when it comes to educating ourselves about who we want representing us. This blatant complacency is what allows parties to control the government, and we let them.

Our second stop is Abuse Terminal. Abuse of the system of one's party as a way to earn a position that one doesn’t necessarily deserve has become a very easy way for politicians to gain power. This is for one simple reason: a reliable voting base associated with either party. Harking back to the idea of complacency as mentioned above, people will essentially vote for the party on the docket and rarely for the actual candidates. When people vote for a person in a known and understood political party, they have a general idea of what that party stands for, and therefore they have a general understanding of what that person stands for. This ideology assumes that politics is red and blue when in reality there are deep reds and light blues with shades of purple thrown into the divide. What I’m trying to say is that political ideologies are on a spectrum, not a color swatch. When we vote for a party instead of voting for a person, we rob ourselves of the political variety and freedom of choice that makes democracy so great.

Herd Mentality Landing: we’ve finally made it to the last stop on the way to total chaos as a nation - the dangers of a herd mentality. By herd mentality, I’m implying two different problems that fall under this phenomenon. The first one is the cult-like devotion that the American people have to the parties with which they associate themselves. We constantly complain about a government that’s becoming more and more divided, but in reality, the state of the country they represent is far worse. People have become so close-minded in their own beliefs to the point at which the idea of switching to or even just voting for, the opposing party will result in social exile. People don’t like being the salmon swimming upstream. There’s no need to discuss how dangerous this is, but I’m going to do it anyway. Whenever the people of a nation are completely unwilling to go against social norms and support a person who’s not accepted by the majority, bad people come to power. When everyone agrees on everything, and no new ideas are ever contributed, the nation grows stagnant, and democracy grows ineffective.

The secondary terminal of Herd Mentality Landing is considering the failure of the other side as a win. People are more fixated on making their vote repress the opposition rather than making it represent something they support. Let me explain. Let’s suppose there are four parties in the United Empire of Baked Goods: the Cookies, the Cakes, the Bagels, and the Donuts.  The Empire has a census, and the role is as follows: forty percent of the people affiliate themselves with the Cakes, thirty-five percent with Donuts, ten percent with Bagels, and fifteen percent with Cookies. They have an election, and obviously, the Cakes win the Election. This result angers the Bagels, as they believe that their vote doesn’t really matter, which it doesn’t. The Bagels then decide to vote alongside the Donuts’ next election, as their ideals are similar enough, and they despise the fact that the Cakes are in power. Next election, the results are as follows: Forty percent of the people vote for the Cakes, forty-five percent with Donuts, and fifteen percent with Cookies. The Donuts have it, and now, understandably, the Cookies are incensed. They also decide to join another camp, the Cakes. They hate to see the Donuts in power and don’t really care if the Cakes don’t represent all of their ideals. Next election, it’s fifty-five to forty-five, and the Empire is down to a two-party system. The system devolved from a spectrum of diverse viewpoints and ideologies to just two pigeon-holed parties hell-bent on making the other lose. But why is this harmful? The nature of the vote is to give people a voice, a ‘say’ in their government. The vote is supposed to represent what the people want, not antithetical to what they don’t want. Contrary to popular belief, the enemy of one's enemy is not always a friend. The practice of opposition voting has become so deeply ingrained in American society that people don’t vote for who they want anymore. It’s always about voting for who can win and beat the candidate you dislike. It has essentially become a game of Tic-Tac-Toe, blocking out the other team and settling for a draw instead of putting your own piece down with the chance of losing. 

---

Our government started out as a beautiful creation, as a skeleton crew on this train used to represent the entirety of the union. Minimalism coupled with the absence of factions of people fighting each other. The absence of blank-minded people just goes with the stream because it’s easier, simpler. The absence of left and right and in place of them, a spectrum, a slide rule of people with simultaneously different and similar ideas all working towards the betterment of the country and not of their party. We need to return to the spectrum. Political parties, the people who identify as them and the people who identify with them, whether we like it or not, are the reason this country is being ripped in half. We must redefine our nation under a single mantra: a group of people who may agree on some things and disagree on others, but at the end of the day, want the best for the nation in which they live. I truly believe we can light off the boiler, load it up with coal, open the throttle, and put the USA Mainline back on track.