Most veteran gamers would remember, or have heard of, the classic red versus blue matches from various classic video game series. They were featured in various franchises and even in an online TV comedy series that was very popular and by the same name “Red vs. Blue.” However, the state of American politics in the current era, although entertaining at times, is anything but funny. Most would agree it’s incredibly dysfunctional, if not downright toxic and scary. One reason that I mentioned red versus blue, however, is that one thing they do have in common is automatic irrational hatred for the other side. The state of politics in what was once regarded as the greatest democracy on Earth has devolved into nothing more than an incredibly destructive game of red versus blue. One side hates and opposes the other side simply because they’re on the other side. There’s no discourse, no room for discussion, just all out warfare and scorched-earth politics.
This has been going on for decades, and like the conflict and tactics in all brutal warfare, it has only escalated. The division has been growing for years and could conceivably reach a point to where it is completely torn apart. This has all come as a result of hyper-partisan scorched-earth politics from the political parties in their red vs blue propaganda game. It has fractured the country and atomized the population into “us” and “them.” It has become an excuse to dehumanize our fellow citizens, label them, put them in a box, discredit them, and marginalize them. I think most of us agree it needs to stop before a lot more damage is done, and I believe the best way to fix the problem is to get rid of the source of the problem itself: the political parties. Politics should not be a game of red vs blue so it’s time to end it. Yeah, you read that right, I’m saying we should just get rid of the political parties altogether and every politician be independent.
I know many people would immediately and automatically balk at that suggestion, however, I find political parties far more illogical overall than having independent candidates. Let’s face it, most people aren’t all one thing, as in completely conservative or completely liberal. Some are, sure, but most people I have ever met in my lifetime have some issues where they take what would be considered a more conservative stance, and some issues where they lean a bit more liberal. Some people may support marijuana legalization and gay marriage, but also second amendment rights and law enforcement. Perhaps some religious liberty supporter would also like to see action on climate change. People shouldn’t be forced into a box.
They are all possible, and even likely given the diversity of our population and our experiences. It hardly seems logical to force everyone in one of two boxes when they evenly agree with both on the same number of issues. This would not only give voters better options, but politicians better freedom as well. They would be able to better represent their constituents. Perhaps we could see such odd things as second amendment rights supporting politicians agreeing to action on climate change. Others supporting medicare-for-all voting to support second amendment rights. People could vote their conscience instead of what some political machine wants and tells them to do. It would give us freedom, and last I checked, something Americans generally really like.
This would also allow us to hold our elected officials accountable more easily. Candidates would have to run and campaign on their own merits and platforms, and get elected by the voters on that. Politicians probably hate the idea because it means more work for them. Voters should love it, we would really get to see what the candidate stands for and the choice would be made on merit, not whether they have an (R) or (D) behind their name – red team or blue team. That seems to be a much more rational way to choose our elected representatives.
The first thought that would come to mind in this idea as a flaw would be the number of candidates. However, there is already a solution to this problem already in place that narrows down the initial field of presidential candidates already in place that we use today. The primary process run in each state could be adapted reasonably easily to suit the new system, narrowing down the field of candidates before the general election down to just two or three. Other legislative and relevant races could be adapted similarly. This would fix the problem of having 20 presidential candidates on the general election ballot.
Another key component for this to work would be that campaign finance laws would have to be fixed and enforced. Otherwise, a danger of someone simply buying an election could be very real. Overall, I think a cap on overall campaign spending, adjusted for inflation every 4 years, would be one possibly good way to achieve this. That would ensure an even playing field for all candidates. Additionally, it may be worthwhile to consider some rules regarding sources and amounts of money given to candidates as well.
Overall, something has to be done. I don’t think the current political parties are capable of it, nor our political system able to handle the current crisis and growing schism within our nation. Elimination of the organizations which are perpetuating the problem is the most effective way to do it. Without such organizations as political parties, there’s no huge apparatus to corrupt. The scope of corruption shrinks to just a handful of bad actors, and would be something a sane and functioning government could mitigate. To get back to that sanity, we need to remove the insanity of the political parties.
