As you may have noticed in my writing, I’ve purposefully avoided allegiance to any particular political party. In fact I’ve made quite an effort to show that one party doesn’t have all the answers. I’ve questioned for some time whether or not this is an effective means of political participation. I believe that party allegiance has some very negative consequences, but also know that there are some benefits. I’d like to discuss for a moment the good, the bad, and the ugly of party allegiance and discuss why I have decided to continue my independent crusade.

The Good. I believe it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any citizen to be adequately educated and informed about every possible local, state, and federal issue and candidate. There’s simply not enough time and too much information. As such, it can be extremely beneficial to take part in a political party that shares one’s general ideas and beliefs. We can gain a substantial amount of information about a candidate just by knowing they belong to a certain party, information we might not otherwise reasonably know. In addition, parties create an incentive for elected officials to remain within certain bounds once they are elected. In some way this limits power and forces leaders to keep their actions in line with the ideas of those that support them. If we vote for a Republican or Democrat, we have a pretty good idea what he or she will do once in office; we might not have that same assurance if we voted for a candidate with no party affiliation.

The Bad. The basic, simple disadvantage of party affiliation is that we only have two options. Perhaps a third party could one day gain traction, but the options are still limited. In general, there is a Republican platform and a Democratic platform, and any potential candidate has to fit into one of those molds. Someone, for example, that believes in protecting traditional marriage and restricting abortion but also supports amnesty for undocumented workers and universal health insurance won’t likely get support from either party. Contrast this to the hypothetical situation where we all have to vote without the benefit of party affiliation – where we’d have to choose based on the candidates’ views on each individual issue. It seems to me, to use the terms of free market economy, that we’d have a much more competitive marketplace of ideas. I think this would allow candidates to more accurately represent our nation. I don’t believe the country is split between two large groups that disagree on every issue, but rather that our constituency is more complex. I’d like our options to be representative of that fact.

With the above information only, I think the benefits of parties still outweigh the costs. Assuming everyone in the country had an independent view on each issue (which I’ll discuss next); our two party system would theoretically produce reliable candidates with views aligned to as many individuals as possible, recognizing that obviously everyone’s opinions can’t be simultaneously represented. However, party allegiance has a huge negative side effect.

The Ugly. The problem is that we don’t independently examine each issue. Political parties have made us mentally lazy. Once we claim allegiance to a party, it’s much too easy to quit analyzing the merits of different ideas, and decide instead that one party is right and another is wrong. If it’s their idea it must be bad and if it’s ours it must be good. I know that not everyone subscribes to this mentality, but I’ve made my decision to remain independent based on my personal observation of how ubiquitous this phenomenon is. I’ve attended two fairly competitive schools at different ends of the political spectrum (United States Air Force Academy and Harvard Kennedy School) and been surprised by the views I’ve seen from some extremely intelligent and caring people. I’ve rarely heard any of these politically active, intelligent, future leaders express ideas that didn’t fit into one of the two common molds. I’ve rarely, if ever, heard someone say, “I disagree with most of this party’s ideas, but now that they’re in office maybe this issue will go better.” I’ve heard people criticize members of their own party, but typically only for their inability to push forward the platform. How is it possible that everyone’s ideas fit so nicely into these two molds? How is it possible that so few people think that one party has it right on some issues and wrong on others?

Worse yet, some people become so involved in the “we’re right and they’re wrong” mentality that they lose sight of the truth. They believe misinformation, distortions, and blatant lies told about the other party. They don’t even know what fundamentally drives them to support their own party. All hope of civility and compromise is lost when any candidate or idea from the other party is decidedly bad.

I understand political theory and realize that there are some fundamental ways of thinking that would lead many people to feel the same way on several issues. The underlying desire for limited government, conservative values, equality and justice, or liberal rights understandably drives similar viewpoints on several issues. However, I believe there are many issues that don’t fall into those categories, and it seems we decide our stance on those issues based on what our party believes, not what individual examination leads us to. In addition, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that public policy in general is a balancing act between many positive outcomes that can’t be achieved simultaneously, and rarely a decision between a right and wrong direction.

So what do I, a concerned citizen actively trying to improve society, do? One option is to pick a side and support it wholeheartedly, to cheer when they win like the world is finally moving the right direction and complain when they lose. Maybe that works if somehow a party’s platform miraculously aligns with your individual assessment of every issue – but I just can’t buy into it. Perhaps a better option is to claim allegiance to one party and work to effect change within that party on the issues in their platform I disagree with. I believe, or at least hope, that many individuals are taking this road and not just accepting that every idea in their party is better than the other party’s. But will anyone listen to me if I claim I’m a Republican but say the Democrat policy on certain issues is actually better? How exactly can I effect change within a party? And what if the change doesn’t happen? How long do I claim allegiance and support a party that doesn’t really represent me? And does my support for that party serve to perpetuate the parts of their platform that I believe to be misguided?

I believe many people accept the above option instead of the alternative of sitting on the sidelines as an independent – feeling like somehow they’re a coward for not drawing a line in the sand, choosing a side, and fighting for their team. I, however, believe I can fight for my beliefs without choosing sides. I believe the Republicans have some things right, and the Democrats have it right on other issues. I believe I’m not sitting on the sidelines, but instead am part of the incentive for parties to improve and evolve. If they want my support they’ll need more than just catchy slogans and predictable rhetoric. They’ll need to think critically about each issue and prove to ME – not just to the masses that agree with them based on the letter in parenthesis behind their name – that they can effectively lead our country. If half the country is blue and the other half is red then I guess my vote is pretty important. And so I’m still proudly independent.