Essence of Independence

A political system that recognizes partisan bias, and still influences a healthy United States. 

Lets talk about some politics. The mere appearance of the subject may make you cringe and turn away. I hope not, however, because I wish to discuss a different rationale than the one typically spewed across the aisles in Washington and the newsrooms of the media. It has certainly been discussed to some degree but not nearly enough in my eyes. Here is the part that I give a disclaimer.

I will not present extensive history of the independent voter. I will not be using statistics to bolster my point of view. This is merely an experiment of thought that requires little outside research to agree or disagree, applaud or discredit my view. I am a proponent for statistical evidence, certainly. But in this realm, I find that you will agree with me, disagree, or take my ideas apart and break each of them down into its finest particle. Enjoy. I surely hope you find this appealing enough to respond in some form or fashion. I love discussion and debate.

I am a proponent of the independent “party” of American political voting. I find that strict partisan bias has somewhat poisoned the essence of the process and business of governing the United States of America. But first I must qualify my statements. The questions about my points, among others I have not already foreseen, are as follows:

A) Isn't bias part of being human?

B) Should we not hold such strong convictions that seem to be a normal part of our character?

C) What can we make of partisan politics?

D) Is the independent “party” biased and partisan in its own right?

The first question I pose is quite interesting at its core. I can only offer allegorical evidence that can at the very least show that biases are clearly part of being a human. One can on a simplistic level view that biases are a tool to bolster an individual or group’s general interests. My view of bias seems to align with the dictionary definition of bias as a “prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.” My bias towards the New York Mets, my favorite baseball team, makes me an avid fan of the club. Sadly enough, the team has not been much to brag about for the past few years. But as bias flounders on the surface of land, truth has the ability to extend into the cosmos. My bias towards the New York Mets will not change the fact the club is not at all better at the business of baseball than the New York Yankees of the Bronx. It is clear that the Yankees have more championships and earn greater profits than my Mets of Queens. Duly noted, my example has stretched outside of politics. But I think I have proven a point that may seem rather obvious but all the more necessary. Bias is self-serving. Truth is truth. The hard part of course is defining what is true. It is true and easy to prove that the Yankees have more championships than the Mets. It is harder to prove and provide truth to the statement “(Insert Political Party/Ideology Here) is the (better/worse) choice to run our country.” I have now set the stage for the dance of defining convictions.

I truly love dictionary.com. The definition and sentence example of conviction is as follows:

a fixed or firm belief: No clever argument, no persuasive fact or theory could make a dent in his conviction in the rightness of his position.

I will take my cheap shot at politicians (although I am sure no one will be angry at me for it) and state that many of them and their constituents seem to possess very firm beliefs indeed. These beliefs seem so firm that nothing can ever alter their view in the slightest. But of course, one must answer if having such strong convictions is even wrong or bad in the first place. My answer, admittedly seeming as a copout, is not really.

You see, a conviction is only “good” in the sense that it provides “a state of being convinced.” If truth, in the general sense of truth, is presented to you, and it is quite clear that the truth is indeed correct, you probably would be wise to accept the presented truth in that general sense as a fact. For example, I am indeed a male. A black male if you wish to be slightly more specific. A black male living in Indianapolis, Indiana and attending Butler University if you wish to get even more specific. It can go on and on if you wish and you would be convinced that the above statements of myself are true if you met me in person. The point I am making is that “a state of being convinced” is not really the problem. The issue is that some people are so VERY VERY convinced that no other argument can ever alter, or even slightly scratch their convictions and push them into another direction. Some people even grow more convinced of their own beliefs when presented with opposing evidence. That is quite fascinating to me.

An anti-partisan view has been stated before in a recent medium article titled “Why I Am And Will Always Be An Independent.” Ironically, the title of the essay is rather convinced of a clear view. Once again I enter the caveat that being convinced is only “good” if you can later be convinced of something else within reason. I am not a believer that any one person or group holds the answers to it all. But evidence is evidence and that deserves its share of respect wherever it can be presented.

The writer of “Why I Am And Will Always Be An Independent” described the current American political system as cult-like. For example, the writer questions why some Republicans appear to believe that there is not a gun problem and the writer also questions why some Democrats think that entitlements need not be reevaluated. My point is not to bash entitlements or gun laws (although I do enjoy a good and hearty debate over these concerns). I simply wish to encourage more discussion and less systematic conviction that only stifles any real work from getting done. It is as if we need to get a new engine and restore a car that already has a proper shell and framework. The shell and framework of course being the U.S. Constitution.

There appears to be an issue with the two-party system which will be covered later in this work. The writer also notes the hypocrisy among both parties in regards to its policies and core ideologies. The solution posed by the writer concludes that “the sooner that we consider ourselves Americans and not members of one cult or the other, the sooner we will all start thinking in terms of what is best for America.” I subscribe to a more altruistic view on how to perceive fair policy that benefits everyone. I propose that this view is not unequivocally centrist, but it is rather more logical. By avoiding the toxic atmosphere that has led to battleground politics, we can choose laws and policies that work into a more efficient and balanced country. It will not be perfect of course. But I do think it can be a lot better than what we witness currently.

The question now is whether or not independent voting is in itself an improper conviction that can only lead to more stifling of progress. In the sense that an extra horse in the race adds another lane to be accounted for, I agree that the independent party can be manipulated just as much as the terms democrat and republican automatically throw people into a terrible box. It may simply become the left, right, or center box. For all we know, that may make matters worse. But that is only if we propose that more parties be formed.

As a whole or even in principle, I am not against the forming of political parties as that appears to be the lawful act of assembly. But one can soon see that political parties may intentionally or otherwise, lump all individuals into a box that is locked in the realm of perception. Democrats believe A, Republicans believe B, Independents believe C, Libertarians believe D, Socialists believe E etc. The problem to me is that politics and the people who identify with these parties are a lot more varied in their thoughts on each topic. The remedy of the past has been to simply add sub parties similarly to sub genres in music. I do not see that as much of a Band-Aid because the cut is still quite deep. The sub parties are still connected to the big parties and that leads to more people being lumped into each box. I find that individuals are rather more complex in their political thought even if their voting records do not show it. That is because people lack choices in the two-party system. Many people may vote for a candidate only because that candidate fits into the box that “best” coincides with the voter themselves. As a result, the voter may compromise many of their concerns because the candidate appears to be a “lesser of two evils.”

So yes, independents may lean one way or another on the invented spectrum that is very right, right, centrist, left or very left etc. But that is beside the point. The fact is that this political spectrum is rather restraining and it holds our political views hostage. It is hard to quantify exactly how far left or right someone is. What is very left or very right to you may not be to another. And since the spectrum is inconsistent in comparison to how it is practiced, I find it no more useful than just a basic guide of explaining political parties to the ignorant.

You can quite frankly see that I am not a fan of lumping all people into a box. I do not think most people do this on purpose and I do not suspect that they are always aware that they do so. But it is true that individuals regularly place each other and oneself in a political box. This makes matters easier in regards to choosing between the two juggernaut parties and what they currently stand for. It is like a “Team Jacob” versus “Team Edward” effect. The nonsense that spews from “one or the other debates” solve little to nothing. For those who are not well acquainted with those terms in relation to Twilight, I think you should read up on them. It is quite fascinating and funny that people go to great lengths arguing over fictional characters, indeed.

My declaration is that all people can be independent in their own ways. There should be no independent “party” because being independent in itself seems to imply that one is absent of a party and chooses the side of reasonable convictions when presented with some form of evidence, logic or fact. Of course, I am aware that fact and evidence can be distorted and logic may not always hold the answers. But it is my lack of pure ideology to the right and left wing that gives me the knife and fork to devour all arguments in hopes of inspiring further debate and discussion of every matter on the table.

While browsing the internet for an article published this winter on the topic of the independent voter, I read the post “There Are No True Independent Voters In American Politics” on the Daily Beast. I am less interested with the article itself as I am interested in the comments posted below it. I found a response from a particular reader rather interesting. Here it is:

GradyPhilpott Dec 3, 2013

I’m independent insofar as I am not tied to any particular party and I especially am not tied to any candidate who says he is an independent. I vote my conscience and while it is true that my vote goes more often to a particular party, it is because of their platform and on the voting record of a particular party. I will vote for the man who gets the job done and represents my values, regardless of which side of the aisle he is on.

I applaud this person. Hopefully he or she or otherwise truly thinks and practices this view as much as they can.

There is a bit more to what the person said and I encourage one to look at the rest of the comment. In short, I find the person’s thoughts concise and clear even with its obvious conviction that the independent mind is a brand worthy of supporting. I am biased to some extent in agreeing with his statement. But the difference is that the usual bias only supports a limited group of people or simply oneself. My bias towards individuals with a generally open mind leads to independent thought. The independent thought may not and should not stop one from being Democrat, Republican or any other party. The point is to be more interested in the well-being of the nation as opposed to preconceived talking points that put party over all others factors.

Here is the tricky part to achieving this independent viewpoint. I will borrow the noted Original Position and Veil of Ignorance by John Rawls as a device to merely explain the logic.

In the original position that I have conjured up, people wish to create a government full of policy and laws that benefit the people and lead to greater efficiency and general equality. After placing the veil of ignorance over their heads, they become ignorant of their own political party affiliations and ideologies. They may be pro-life or pro-choice. They may defend the second amendment or they may wish to repeal it. They may be Democrat or Republican etc. I rather not go on and on this time. You get the point. I simply wish to provide the framework of this alternate reality in which the individuals have no cognitive evidence of what political party they may stand for in the true reality.

With all this in mind, it then becomes rather meaningless to rig the system in one’s favor because no one would know what team to rig it for. The biases are effectively rendered useless because the game cannot benefit any group over the next simply because one may rig the system against oneself unintentionally. The people will choose something more justified and fair in order to not harm themselves in the process. This principle uses the truth that people will preserve themselves selfishly and choose what is best for themselves. What is best for themselves in this example is to choose something more equal and applicable.

This is where the independent way of viewing politics steps in. Sure, once the people are restored and placed out of the alternate reality, they may go back to their convictions and beliefs. But in this sense, they will have a far more independent mind that can dissect and tolerate more opinions as opposed to their own. Quite frankly, we need more people willing to debate and discuss the hard questions. In too often a time, people remain trapped in their rigid convictions or they merely dismiss the opposing argument without really taking the time to reflect on what is being said. An alternative may not change your mind at all! Even my long essay in favor of independent voting as a concept may not sit well with you. That is, however, my point after all. I am convinced of one thing. You may be convinced of another. Lets talk it out and figure where we stand. I see no harm in that at all, do you?

Please, if you will, leave comments, feedback, recommend and share if you find it worthy of a read. Thank you, sincerely.