Initial commit.

blog/posts/2020-11-05-do-away-with-parties.html

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+<p>In light of the most recent elections and the chaos and tension that
+accompanies it, I think it may be important to talk about the way the
+democratic system works and one of its key flaws, both in the United
+States and in other places (like my home country of Spain). I realize
+that this is entering into politics, something that I generally haven't
+done for quite some time, but I believe that this is sufficiently
+neutral of a topic and answering to something that people from both
+sides can see some benefit from.</p>
+
+<p>In the past, I have been very pro-party. That is to say, I believed
+that politics should emphasize the parties and not the candidates. My
+reasoning was that when politics focuses on the candidate, we focus on
+the candidate's personality and characteristics rather than their policy
+which would truly have an effect on the Common Good (which is the
+primary function of the State). I also criticized candidate-centric
+politics for simplifying politics into nothing more than the campaign,
+since the candidate on his own is unlikely to draft a robust, concise,
+and coherent policy during his campaigning, while a party can.</p>
+
+<p>However, something I've come to realize over time is that these are
+not the effects of candidate-centric politics, but Democracy itself. By
+the very nature of Democracy, in an attempt to appease the Masses, the
+level of political discourse must be simplified and popularized so as to
+attract the attention of the most people possible. This is not to say
+that the majority of people are ignorant or in any way mentally
+incapable of understanding politics, but rather that we all have better
+things to do than spend all day learning about the state of our
+country's politics. The idea of the eight hour work day was that the
+worker would work eight hours, sleep eight hours, and have eight hours
+to be at home with his family. For the working man to spend time
+updating himself on current events, which may not even be relevant to
+him or his family, would mean taking time not out of work hours, which
+would not be allowed by his superior, not out of his sleep, which is
+necessary for his own health, but out of his time to spend with his
+family. Time that, although also vital, is often treated as unimportant
+or expendable.</p>
+
+<p>Given that Democracy is not something we are willing to give up, or
+at least not in the near future, it does seem apparent that some kind of
+change is still necessary to combat the most negative effects it has:
+instability, divisiveness, and polarization. The solution to which, I
+believe, lies in the dissolution of political parties in favor of an
+electoral system that functions solely on the basis of candidates with
+absolutely no affiliation to any political organizations.</p>
+
+<p>Political parties exist as an inherently collectivist idea, whereby
+the entire party and all its constituents rally around a common ideology
+with more or less variation. As such, a party is not so much defined by
+the people in it, but by an ideology to which its constituents conform.
+This on its own limits the diversity of combinations of policy that
+could be possible in a Democracy. Aggregate to this that a party system
+will tend towards the concentration of different ideological currents
+into a single party so as to consolidate power. This happens not only in
+the United States, where there is a sole office to be taken by the
+winning candidate, but even in parliamentary systems as we have in
+Spain. Any Third-Way ideas that do not fit neatly into the Left-Right
+dichotomy adopted by mainstream politics will be unwelcome and expelled
+from the political arena.</p>
+
+<p>From the concentration comes a lack of flexibility or nuance in
+political policy and discourse. Candidates are forced to hold party
+lines, which are made on a basis of ideology and voter research (i.e.
+demagogue). When different times call for different prudential measures,
+the parties will religiously stick to their Man-made ideologies with no
+consideration for temporary expedient measures. Examples would be such
+as those of the Libertarian who will refuse to enact any State Welfare
+programme despite desperate need of such aid, or the Socialist who will
+refuse to consider some deregulation of certain sectors of the economy
+to allow for smaller enterprises to grow. To these party candidates, the
+party line is what is sacred, not the Common Good.</p>
+
+<p>If we were to dissolve all political party structures, and elect on a
+basis of candidates alone, then many of the barriers to dialogue and
+diversity of policy would be eliminated. Candidates would no longer be
+funnelled into certain ideological boxes, but be free to espouse a more
+nuanced solution to our problems. Nor would it be necessary to make any
+ideological declarations, as one would not need to be part of any
+particular party in order to win an election. Third-Way candidates would
+be on equal standing as the conventional Left-Right dichotomy. It now
+becomes more difficult to discern who the mainstream candidates will
+be.</p>
+
+<p>It is likely, of course, that in the beginning of such a system
+being implemented many candidates will attempt to associate with the old
+labels and parties so as to gain more votes. In doing this, many voters
+may feel the need to still vote for one of these candidates (although
+they will likely be many) so as to avoid a greater evil from being
+elected. This can be remedied by using a ranked voting system. Allowing
+voters to choose candidates based upon a ranked list rather than only
+voting for a single candidate. All ballots that ranked first the
+candidate that won the least amount of votes will transfer their votes
+to the candidate ranked second on their ballot, and the process
+continues until a final winner is determined.</p>
+
+<p>In a greater attempt to combat the errors of party systems and
+Democracy over all, it should also be prohibited to do any kind of
+publicity, campaigning, or propaganda of any sort outside designated
+(and equally alloted) spaces. E.g. publicly hosted debates and
+interviews with each of the candidates as well as a public platform on
+which each candidate can publicize their programmes and policies for the
+public. In this manner, we avoid political elections being turned into
+spectacles for our entertainment, and keep them <i>bland</i> as nothing
+more than a discussion on policy.</p>
+
+<p>As candidates would no longer be associated with parties or
+ideologies of any sort, the polarization of society would diminish as we
+begin to appreciate more nuance in each other's opinions; recognizing
+that we may agree for different reasons, or disagree but have similar
+intentions. Rather than viewing our political adversaries as polar
+opposites of our own view, we will see them as people with differing
+opinions that may, at times, be misguided. We will begin to consider
+candidates not as opposed to one another, but with different ideas on
+how to achieve a common goal: the Common Good.</p>
+
+<p>We are living in one of the most divisive times, not only in the
+United States, but in many places. The COVID-19 pandemic and the
+consequent economic recession have led us down a path of uncertainty
+and desperation, moving us to take desperate measures. It is absolutely
+clear that the manner in which our political systems currently function
+is not helping the situation, but rather fueling the fires of the
+already roaring flame. A change is needed for the good of our
+compatriots. It may be very unlikely, or even implausible that such
+changes could occur, much less now, as all parties are doing their best
+to seize as much power as possible; but this should not stop us from
+trying to make changes in the system. We must remember that our
+compatriots who think differently from ourselves do so in hopes that it
+will be better for our country, and ultimately it is better for the
+Common Good when we are not at each other's throats.</p>
+