Final Thoughts on Politics

As I look back at all I’ve read, thought about, and wrote this past month studying national government, I realize that there have been three constant things present in each issue: disagreement, argument, and controversy. Each topic always seems to have two, and only two sides arguing, and seemingly fighting to the death, over what they think should be decided. These sides consistently trace back to one of the first things we were asked to determine in this course: our political ideology and party.

It has become apparent to me that the existence of two dominant ideologies and a bipartisanship has torn our country’s national government in two, both sides seemingly destined to disagree on everything they possibly can. Both politicians and citizens are constantly judged, favored, or disliked purely by which side of the spectrum they claim to identify with. Furthermore, I think these people also feel much pressure to stay in line with their particular ideology. Even since the start of this course less than a month ago, I have felt confused and unsure when I learned that my first gut instinct on an issue was not in agreement with my determined and supported ideology and party affiliation. It is very hard to come to grips with the fact that you may agree with the opposing party on an issue, particularly when loyalty is such a prevalent characteristic in politicians.

For example, recently New York representative Anthony Wiener gave a speech in which he scolded his fellow representatives for voting a certain way regardless of how they felt about the issue, but because they felt the procedure of the legislation was wrong. Behind the scene, political party undoubtedly played a huge role here. The pressure on politicians to vote within the line of those of their fellow party often makes them lose site of what their gut tells them is truly right.

What I am about to suggest may be one of the most uneducated suggestions that could easily be rejected by anyone with more knowledge of the subject of political parties, but is it possible that the US would have been better off without the creation of a bipartisanship? In such a government people would have no choice but to agree with what they think is right, and they would have no predetermined party that they might feel pressure to side with against their better judgment. Instead of their only being two sides of the argument, there could potentially be many more that just two opinions. But just maybe the opportunity could arise for people realize that they all actually want the same changes and decisions to be made, without controversy. Sure, it could be very farfetched, but it could also possibly limit the disagreement and argument that currently persists in the government every day.