Political parties provide a useful service to the voters: they simplify the process of selecting a candidate. Just as the task of running a national government is delegated to those voted into office (at least nominally: the bureaucracy keeps an element of constancy among the continually changing representatives, presidents, senators, etc.) The task of choosing the topics to discuss, the most important issues to the public, the tone of the political conversation is delegated to two large political parties.
They like to pretend that they sit on opposite sides of a fence (otherwise how could their existence be justified?) But in truth, you find that the same kinds of people, the same varieties of opinion make up both parties, if in different proportions. Like Pepsi and Coke: any truly radical differences in ingredients? No, just truly radically different followings.
The problem is that politics is not a choice between two brands of soda pop. Or at least it shouldn't be. But that is often what it comes down to when you register as part of a political party. The party feeds you politics in consumer fashion, and you are relieved from the messy details of really trying to understand ugly issues like economics (bad memories of that class.)
Revision
Political parties simplify politics. The task of running a nation, a state, or even the city you live in is delegated to some individual brave enough to undertake full time work to 'make things better.' Similarly political parties undertake the task of choosing which topics to discuss, what is 'vital' for the nation 'now,' and finding people to volunteer themselves for office.
The two dominant political parties like to show that they sit on opposite sides of a political fence. This helps justify their existence. But, in truth, the same varieties of people make up both parties, if in differing proportions. Like Pepsi and Coke, ingredients do not differ radically. Just followers.
Deciding the course of a people isn't a choice between two brands of soda pop, you protest. I agree. It shouldn't be. But when you delegate understanding, or even trying to understand the issues, your choice is about as meaningful. "Whom do I prefer?" then "What stories does my party tell me?" One might as well say "Do I prefer Pepsi or Coke?" then "So what do the commercials tell me?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is going to sound odd, but I preferred the slightly more formal wording of the first paragraph. While the second does have a better flow, more casual, the point does not come across as clearly. Focusing on removing "to be" words defintitely improved the paragraph but it really wasn't that bad to begin with.
er, that was, I preferred the FIRST paragraph slightly more. I forgot to include that vital fact. Whoops.
I agree with Brandon, but I would keep the pepsi/coke analogy of the second one. It makes much more sense that way.
Post a Comment