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.