“Party Genealogy”: How We Fix Everything in Politics

What if your party affiliation, Democrat, Republican, whatever, were treated like your personal ancestry? This is my plan for how to fix everything partisan. Just change the language. I want it to be like you’re asking somebody where their family comes from. It’s a perfect model, because coming from somewhere else is a very American trait.

Every American carries a little card in their minds that describes their ancestry. Even if it’s simple, even if they’re fresh off the boat or come from a long, straight line of heritage they’ll have this idea of where they come from and how that plays into being an American. Many have a long, muddled list. Ask someone about this card. They’ll read it to you: “Well, I’m half Scottish/German, on my father’s side, a quarter Pakistani, from Grandma, an eighth Cherokee from grandpa and the rest is a mix.”

“Wait, the rest is a mix?”

“Yeah, we’re not really sure what’s in there but father thinks its Aztec.”

“Aztec?”

“Or Mayan, maybe, if you go back far enough.”

What’s key to this exchange is that it allows the person to describe a kind of pride in their personal, familial history while not requiring the listener to necessarily infer any particular, stereotyped qualities about that person like that they are orderly because of the German or interesting or good with horses because of the Cherokee. That’s the beauty of being an American, history without necessarily being tied to culture. America is about a clean slate. The American dream, in fact, is available precisely because it promotes the individual to succeed beyond, or even despite, their history. So when somebody says she’s half-Scottish/German, quarter Pakistani, etc, they are really saying, “I’m all American, baby!” And the best part of that is that, despite such a claim of heritage, they have the choice to be what they want as Americans.

Imagine, now, that we take this model with the party system.

Let’s look at what’s wrong with the party system:

First, it makes you choose an alliance. You have to say I’m a this or a that. Dont’ go arguing that you can say, “Independant,” because there are too many Republicans and Democrats who have already chosen their side, and they wont understand you as anything but weak or indecisive. And for those who suggest that they are independently-thinking (choose party), I would suggest that they are quite an exception, and that there are a lot more who react more than consider.

The trouble with an alliance is that it allies you with an awful lot of baggage. A Democrat can be John Stewart, Bill Clinton, or this girl I know who is an art major and, literally, hugs trees. A Republican, meanwhile, can be Ronald Regan, John McCain or this Aspergers kid I went to high school with who walked like a duck and complained about the minorities presence causing his classroom overcrowding. Does being a Democrat define you, or your beliefs? Does being a Republican define you, or your beliefs? No.

One could argue, at this point, that each party has general tenets. Democrats like social programs. Republicans like small government. Sure. But I think the time has come to acknowledge that the application of such broadminded principles when it comes to a stance on complex issues (see Health Care or the national debt) is often too myriad, too permuted, to really constitute a fair idea of what either party, or its individuals, is really after.

So here’s what I propose. We don’t need to do away with the parties, just treat how we talk about them differently. Instead of answering, “I’m a Republican,” and leaving it at that I might answer, “I’m half Republican, on my mother’s side, with a quarter Democrat on my father’s. There’s another quarter that’s a mix of Independent and Libertarian. Father thinks we might have some Green Party in us.

See what’s happened? First, the person gets to acknowledge their different influences. Second, it is understood that such influences are muddled and that, as an American, none of it necessarily has anything to do with what you believe. History without affiliation. Nowhere in the exchange are a person’s beliefs expected of offered. That frees the whole matter up. Now people can think.

One could easily follow such a banal exchange of “where do you come from” with more pertinent, direct questions; questions which beg rational explanation and expose misunderstandings. “Ah, well, all that nonsense aside, what do you believe in?”

“I believe in small government, food for the homeless, and boat subsidies.”

“I’m sorry, boat subsidies?”

“Yes.”

“Can you explain that last one.”

“Oh, course. I think boating should be subsidized because of how much it gives back to the economy, what with the spray coming off the bow and marvelous tans the occupants acquire. It’s all quite good for the economy.”

“Do you know what an economy is?”

“Of course I do. Economy is how you feel when you fly in a regular seat on your flight home. I always feel best on my flights home after a long trip out on the ocean. Aren’t vacation’s lovely?”

The key to this silly example is that because belief was separated from Party, there was nothing assumed. And without assuming a person’s belief’s or affiliations, such beliefs are open to debate and further inquiry. As demonstrated ridiculously, there is even opportunity to discover if two people mean the same thing when they use the same word.

I am not naive (not wholly, anyhow). I get that there are two major factors against any of my impractical idealism. First, parties are not about beliefs, they are about manifesting power, so that a group (whatever they believe or don’t believe in) can control. People will always ally themselves because a group is typically stronger than an individual. Second, we say Democrat or Republican because it is easier than having to explain ourselves. At best, explaining our personal views on the world would be time consuming. At worst, it would expose that whatever “beliefs” we pretended to hold were little more than inbred custom and knee-jerk reaction, much the way a dog might explain that he “believes” sticks should not have rights and that cats are burdening health care.

Such a change, from Party Affiliation to Party Genealogy does not have to be radically implemented. What is important is the recognition of what flaws such a change would intend to correct: that values are not the same as Parties, just as traditions are not the same as cultures.