Author: Shannon Walsh
Voters are indeed swayed by the party they support—they align their views with their particular faction without deciding for themselves. Perhaps it’s not the voter’s fault at all though. The system we have established is designed to make it impractical to advocate different ideas from both the Democratic and Republican sphere. Correspondingly, this is a problem we constantly encounter within our two-party system. In America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Institution, Jon Stewart writes, “Each party has a platform--a pre-fixed menu of beliefs making up its worldview. The candidate can choose one of the two platforms, but remember: no substitutions. For example, do you support healthcare? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion.” Stewart points out how the two-party system is flawed, on the grounds that, your opinion is fixed. Whether you choose to be a conservative or liberal your ideas are predetermined and inflexible essentially. This brings out several more problems for the voter: voter ignorance, complacency, strong status quo mindset, and extreme hatred towards the opposition. “Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket” is what they say, right? —Well, our system forces everyone to do this. This causes our society to be complacent regarding the parties they support and also justifies the lack of initiative people have to gain political knowledge. Typically people's political stances are based on their parents. They then agree with and rely on all of those particular perspectives without any doubts or questions. This falls onto an underlying status quo issue in our system; changes within political views amongst the parties are virtually inconceivable. Ultimately the two-party system impedes on a cohesive governmental system. People throughout society tend to dislike others who possess opposing political views—I have seen it firsthand. Why should we be judged based on what we believe? Can’t we embrace the opposition’s opinions and compromise—this could lead to great things. It’ll help construct the best policies for the general public. Abortion, for example, is an issue that neither party can come to a consensus on. Problems like these should be decided by the individuals. This can demote gridlock substantially. All in all, we must listen to and embrace our fellow dissenters. Shouldn’t we work on achieving togetherness? Why don’t we promote acceptance? The two-party system is becoming so ineffective and we need to make an immediate change.
I find it interesting that in today's world where information is more accessible than ever and the vast majority of voters have Internet access, groupthink is becoming more and more of an issue. It is a great irony that the opportunity to make informed poitcal decisions is squandered by so many today. Also, the rigid platforms supported by each party lead to a discussion of the forces behind such ideologies - specifically, money wielding organizations such as the NRA - and their place in politics. Great post!
ReplyDelete