The No Party System

What is the purpose of a political party? Partisan politics prevent originality and cause resentment, conformity and closed minded thinking. Many people feel strongly about a few issues and have well thought out arguments but neglect other topics. Why then do we blindly follow our party’s opinion on the rest of the issues?

Labels limit creativity. They create boundaries and impede original ideas from entering the minds of the populace.

New ideas are like brilliant comets entering the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a barrier that burns up most ideas but the comets with impact and force withstand the heat and create massive explosions. Conformity strengthens the barrier of the atmosphere while open-mindedness attracts comets.

Reject unthinking conformity and continue the barrage of idea-comets directed through the atmosphere. Do not allow yourself to be led to believe something without thinking critically about where you stand.

It is easy to not objectively consider both sides of an argument. We trick ourselves into thinking we have considered both sides when really we have only asked questions easy to defeat or easy to defend.

Honestly challenge your most strongly held political convictions. There is no harm in questioning yourself because if you are really correct then you will arrive at the same conclusion.

Try to argue the other side of an argument not with the intention to strengthen your originally held belief but to find the truest answer. After you have honestly and equally considered both sides, you should be left with the truest result you can produce at that point in your life and you will be more capable of spreading the truth.

Your conclusion may not be the truest answer, but then again, it might be. We are not infallible judges of right and wrong, so there is no point in speaking without conviction, even though there is a chance you are wrong. If you have done your best to reach for truth with a fair and open mind, then you have done as much as you can.

A method for determining the truest argument is to constantly ask “why?” Every time you think you are done, ask, “Why is this true?” And “why is the opposite false?”

Why do people follow a certain party? Most people swear allegiance to a certain political party because their parents did so. This pattern indicates the two parties in power will pass down their biases and ideas through the generations much like a monarchy is passed down through a family.

You say you’re a Republican or a Democrat? So you have exactly the same opinions close to half the American population has. It doesn’t statistically make sense that many people could arrive at the same conclusions on so many topics.

Maybe you don’t agree with everything one party espouses but you still label yourself as Republican or Democrat. Simply labeling yourself causes you to unconsciously throw up barriers preventing you from thinking objectively.

Let’s abolish parties and elect people independent of any party. Those leaders will choose on their own, without any party guidelines, what they believe in. The constitution and the legal system should be what guides politicians. We will have a wider variety of leaders from which to choose, a need that is now quite evident.

The establishment’s rules filter the pool of politicians down to a sparse and pathetic lot. It elects politicians who fundamentally have the same opinions as their predecessor.

Each new politician takes a very small step forwards or backwards. Perhaps this helps stabilize progress. But it can’t hurt to have more candidate options from which to choose.

Our government moves like a flywheel with massive momentum, which resists volatility. The Republican and Democratic parties are checks on each other like the yin and yang. More parties mean more checks and more stability. This system expects the people to actively make a decision about what they believe in.

It requires more effort from us, which may result in a smaller voter turnout. But the opposite might happen as well. Perhaps it will excite people and cause us to be more engaged.

The establishment doesn’t want this because many people would lose the power and money they have grown accustomed to.

Isn’t it odd candidates resort to slanderous advertisements meant to mar the integrity of their opponent. Advertisements of this nature only prove a candidate’s inability to discuss an issue on equal terms. It’s childish at best and a colossal waste of money.

What’s worse is it works and precludes less wealthy people from running. It works partly because we allow it to work by not researching issues on our own.

The media isn’t much help. It’s difficult to sift through the mire of stories to find one that is reality.

Freedom of speech is one thing but slander is another. I’m not sure how to solve this as long as the press is greedy for a shocking story that will sell.

In an age of information and social media, we must become better at discerning truth in an opinion. We are constantly bombarded with opinions through the Internet and TV and it is overwhelming. Decision-making is tiring, and we are incessantly asked to make decisions.

Let’s take the same decision making enthusiasm we have when shopping and apply it to other areas of our life. So when a politician claims something, or anyone claims something, second-guess it.

Like what you read? Give James Sitzmann a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.