Possibly one of the safest, yet most widely ignored beliefs regarding American politics is that political parties are inherently bad — anyone with a primary school education can tell you that George Washington himself said so. I really don’t know if this is true, and, furthermore, I think all generalizations are wrong out of principle, as much of a paradox as that seems.
There is obviously some beneficial aspect of political parties. At their most basic level, they offer a form of organization and voice that would be otherwise impossible. Certainly, this has done a lot of good in helping individuals find their voice and test their beliefs by analyzing the disparities between the opinions of different groups of people.
Rather, I think perhaps the mentality that the general public has adopted regarding political parties is unproductive and one-sided.
For one, political parties are polarizing, maybe not in nature — although this could very well be argued — but at least in the way they are marketed to their constituents by both candidates and the media. If you are not for one party, you are seen as being against it.
There is a reason that 92 percent of registered voters consider themselves either Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning, and it’s the same reason third-party candidates only received 5.6 percent of the vote the 2016 presidential election. These statistics reflect the fact that voters do not vote for the candidate who most closely fits their ideological alignment, but against the candidate they least want to win.
It is also surprising how voters are told that their voices matter and that they should not refrain from voting, while at the same time the 3.3 percent of the electorate that voted for Gary Johnson was shamed for being responsible for Hillary’s loss. It is less likely that the two major political parties entirely encapsulate the viewpoints of 94.5 percent of voters, and more likely that people are simply voting out of fear.
The source of this fear is perhaps the most insidious part of the whole ordeal, and it comes from the trend of villainizing those we disagree with ideologically — surely, they believe what they do because they are truly evil deep down. They could not possibly have some rationale or justification for their beliefs (even if they are wrong and that justification is fallacious).
The polarized villainization that is imposed on society is a way of thinking that turns the person who believes abortion should be legal into an infant murderer, and the person who believes abortion should be illegal into a puritanical Fascist. With this kind of polarization and fear, these two individuals (who are most likely neither of these projections) cannot have a rational discussion about why they believe what they do, nor can they hope to come to an agreement.
As of late, the labels “Republican” and “Democrat” have become synonymous with “conservative” and “liberal,” respectively. To dismiss any confusion, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are misnomers — both movements are conservative, but stem from different ideologies. Additionally, those who acknowledge this on both sides view the principles they are trying to conserve as the values that really need to be upheld for society to prosper, which the other side is trying to tear down.
What we are left with is a society dominated by a team mentality that disrupts any attempt toward progress because it prevents any constructive discussion or teamwork from taking place. As unpopular of a take as this is, everyone — no matter how wrong you think they may be — has had some kind of thought or experience that you haven’t. After this is recognized, it is possible to take two different forms of knowledge (or experience) and try to bridge the divide in thinking — in other words, to understand why you think differently and try to come to an agreement.
I run the risk of being offensive (and misunderstood) with this statement, but the kind of “bad guys” who exist in our fiction and in our minds do not exist; they can’t exist because everyone believes they themselves to be the “good guys.” The only response to maintain the paradigm that one’s enemies are truly evil that needs to be defeated is: “but we’re really the good guys.” This response is incredibly paradoxical when one realizes that even the most fundamentally “woke” members of every faction embrace this ideology.
I hope there is no misunderstanding here: I am not saying there are no evil actions — there most certainly are — I am simply trying to show that the people committing them are acting out of fear, insanity or a mere lack of understanding of the fundamental truths of the world (e.g. prejudice generalizations based on race are merely untruths).
Villainizing the stereotyped masses you disagree with isn’t just false because it is a generalization (they obviously do not view themselves in the way you do), it is poisonous to society and halts any chance of progress. Political factions might not be inherently bad, but it is crucial we start trying to understand why the people we disagree with believe what they do — even if they’re wrong — instead of simply dismissing them as evil or hateful.
You cannot have a real discussion with someone who has different experiences than you and come to a mutual (and better) understanding of a certain topic if you are going into the discussion trying to vanquish an enemy.
