Everyone Loses When a Politician Wins

Political Blogger

In this fall’s past election, two career politicians  ran for for governor—two individuals who aren’t above saying and doing anything they must to be elected. In a system designed to enable those most hungry for power, it shouldn’t surprise one to find that politicians, as a rule, are best at getting elected, not performing the job for which they were elected. This is the situation we, as a generation, face.

Apologists will claim that only their candidate is immune from this dilemma. They will argue that, though we share common goals, those goals may only be reached through a government that contains their party. If only democracy could be done away with and a government could be unified by a single party. The logical end to these arguments is totalitarianism. Proponents of the two-party system would never admit to this, for it is unreasonable to believe that a single party could ever occupy enough governmental positions to take complete control. This may be true, but why, then, would they advocate for this form of representation? What is to be gained through partial control of government? If the purpose of government is clear, as it seems to be for proponents of the two parties, why should the people let democracy get in the way? We only stand to gain by doing away with democracy, dividing into two countries, and allowing single-party governments to rule. This accomplishes the Republican and Democratic goal of controlling government. What then?

In this new land where there is only one party, it seems possible that there will be a variation in ideology—even among those who share fundamental values. In the country established by Republicans, there is bound to be disagreement as to the size of government. How small should it be? In the country established by Democrats, there is bound to be disagreement as to the tax rate for each given income. It appears, now, that the same problem will inevitably develop. Two parties will dispute minor differences in policy meant to achieve the same ends. Following the path previously provided, the countries may split and the cycle will continue until all that is left is the individual.

At this point, where individuals are forced to govern themselves (as most people cannot divide into two in order to solve a dispute), one finds what is called anarchy. Until now, we’ve discussed the nature of political division concerning broad policy. Now, broad policy decisions have been left to the individual. Things such as protection from murder, property theft and rape have never been matters of broad policy and are therefore still in place. The broad policies, formerly left to politicians or millions of people, are now subject to a single person. This means that an individual’s choice to marry another individual, carry a gun, use drugs or homeschool their children affect only that person, so long as they do these things peacefully. No longer is each of the 300 million individuals in a specific geographic location subjected to an ultimatum between two broad policies. In this way, democracy becomes obsolete.

The choice between the lesser of two evils is not an inevitable one. Governmental precedent is not a legitimate argument in defending a broken system. As evidenced by the abolitionists, the constitution’s enshrinement of slavery did not justify it. Similarly, one shouldn’t believe that society needs government to improve itself simply because society’s previous improvements have happened in the presence of government.