• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The considerable shortcomings of both main-party candidates this year have given rise to an exciting political phenomenon. President Bush has been attacked for executing a plan in Iraq without ample information and a prominent alliance. Sen. John Kerry has been harangued with accusations of flip-flopping.

These accusations and myriad others have forced many Republicans and Democrats to answer a tough new question: Should I maintain allegiance to a party that now seems different from – and worse than – the party for which I once registered? Some have switched sides, and others have become independent. In this piece, I will not advocate that the concerned citizen quit his party or stick with it, but argue that he should consider several important points first.

Though the question to be answered seems simple and logical, it disguises the more important issue that must be considered. The dissatisfied citizen must judge the nature of his discontent, not just the degree. In other words, has his party merely digressed from its fundamental principles or has it betrayed them completely? This crucial distinction is almost invariably disregarded.

On Bruin Walk, passerby Stephanie Miller, a fourth-year political science student, says, “I’m a Democrat, and I don’t particularly like John Kerry. I think he’s bad for the Democratic image, but I’m voting for him anyway. When you’re a member of a party, you’ve got to be a member all the way through. Solidarity is solidarity. Solidarity doesn’t stop just ‘cause you don’t like your candidate.”

Former Republican Al Dinche, a third-year history student, explains his side: “I’ve been a registered Republican for the last three years, but just last week I changed to independent. I think that people talk about ideas and big notions of morality, but at the end of the day, the person your party is represented by is the person who leads it. I mean, I’m still a conservative, but I’m just not going to be associated with George W.”

Miller and Dinche present two views that are most likely valid on one level but incomplete on another. The only reason Miller should remain a Democrat is because she believes Kerry is simply a temporary digression from Democratic norms. Dinche should only be switching if he believes the root ideas of Republicanism have changed forever. They may have followed this thought process, but countless others in their position have not.

Republicans generally believe in small government, a relatively free market and individual rights over happy societal ends. Democrats generally believe in an outreach government that strives to make Americans happy, healthy and rich. If the achievement of these ends means big government and a controlled market, then so be it.

In short, Republicans believe in the equality of the process and Democrats believe in the justness of the outcome.

These general principles have divided the two parties for decades and the divide continues to this day, even though the two sides do not have perfect representation in their present candidates. Hence, the argument that either party has seriously betrayed its principles holds little water.

Each citizen must judge for himself whether his party is living up to the ideals that make it great. But the more important judgment, and the more relevant in our case, is whether the fact that they don’t live up is grounded in a unique presidential style or a bottom-up change in party platform. If it is simply a presidential style, then quitting would be irresponsible. Since your party represents your ideas – not just your candidate – switching parties would signify changing your ideals.

Though the distinction is mostly ignored when it comes to politics, it is apparent when it comes to friends. If your friend sneakily makes you pay for the restaurant check or forgets your birthday or puts excessive amounts of gel on his hair, you forgive. Why? Because the fundamentals of your friend – what brought him to you – do not change.

When, however, these small instances accumulate into general patterns of arrogance, insensitivity and selfishness, then you break. Why? Because now the fundamentals have changed, not just the sporadic specifics.

The analogy is an incomplete one, but it helps to clarify an important political problem. Being annoyed with or upset about the actions or habits of your party is not enough to call it quits. Living with temporary annoyance will be worthwhile in the long-term. It is when core standards are replaced – when annoyance becomes betrayal – that the citizen must take a stand and look for a better party.

The Russians have an interesting saying: “Every grandmother was once a girl.” The deep philosophical point here is that your party may have matured – some would say changed – into an older and different grandmother. Regardless of your final choice, you should first look into the old woman and see if the girl is still there.

If we cannot afford our parties this final shred of decency, then the very highway of democracy is headed to a kerplunking dead end.

Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student. E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.