The Democratic Mess

For the past two months I have driven past many yard signs that tout political candidates whom I favor. I have driven by lots of signs trumpeting candidates for whom I will not vote. And I have investigated the platforms of candidates on the ballot whose names I do not see at all on local signs.

When I drive past the adverts for candidates who will not receive my vote, I am tempted to think that somehow those "opposing" voters have missed something. I am easily drawn into the fantasy that if only they would see the world more completely--in other words, the way I see it--then they would agree with me. Then so much of our political rancor would recede into reasonable agreement.

I suppose that many of those who would never vote for my favored candidates think the same way about me.

I cannot depend on "reason" or "enlightenment" or "patriotism" or "sanity" leading us all to the same candidates. The reason we have two opposed main parties and a plethora of candidates in every election is, I think, precisely because we cannot agree on what characteristics or principles make a candidate or a governmental system good and effective. The only common feature among us as voters is the fact that "we" are all voters.

"We" are a collection of "I"s living our lives, having our thoughts and experiences, and forming our political opinions. And since we are independent "I"s, we are living, having, and forming those things independently. But each of us will vote from our foundation of "I."

So the process of voting, of politics, is an assertion of my thoughts, desires, and ambitions. Voting is the most selfish of political endeavors. What I want, what I think, what I believe is important will guide my vote. Some of us will vote one particular way because we hope to get more money (from the government, from our business, from tax breaks) as a result. Some of us will vote one particular way because we hope to fight climate change, or help immigrants; some because we hope that the government will just do less and therefore give us more freedom.

But all of these motivations to vote as we do come from a sense of selfishness: my gain, my principles, my goals.

This is the seed of democracy: that the one thing we can all agree on, politically, is that we're all pursuing our own interests. The only thing we can depend on, as free Americans, is that we're in it for ourselves. This might sound like a downer--elevating selfishness, and all--but in fact it is part and parcel of the American project. The moment I am not allowed to pursue my self-interest to the fullest is the moment I am no longer free.

"Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness": These words describe the character of freedom and mandate that politics become a scrum of self-interested individuals. Those individuals may clot up for a while--out of self-interest, to get their needs met--but when a party's direction no longer aligns with their interests, they're off and away. Freely.

In fact, as Americans the distance we go as "we" is very short before we become a feline herd of "I"s. That distance is the Constitution, and at the end of that parchment our political unity ends. To prove the point, even the matter of how to interpret the Constitution divides us. But at least we agree that the Constitution is the thing we need to interpret in order to establish our laws. Of course, if enough us believe that the Constitution does not serve our interests then . . . and the American project continues.

So it seems right and proper that the diversity of voices in the United States leads to the political mess of this year's election, and every election in fact. The system is working. Freedom of speech is working. The right to vote--and the parallel sense of entitlement to vote however I want--is working.

I will take comfort in the yard signs whose perspective I cannot fathom. I will worry when we're all in lock-step with a party or candidate and I am pleased by every yard sign. Because then we won't be in a democracy anymore.