“I hate everyone.”
~ Grumpy Cat ~
While working as a reporter in Texas, I was dispatched to Dallas to cover the 2014 Texas GOP Convention. Let’s just say it was an experience I’ll not soon forget. During my short stay in the Lone Star State, I was quickly clued in to a well-known fact: Texas Republicans are truly their own breed. Whatever you may think about Republicans… well, let’s just say that everything really is bigger in Texas. They don’t just feel uneasy about the abortion issue; they hate abortion. They don’t just think that we should govern with morality; they want to stock every classroom with Bibles. It’s not that they’re suggesting we don’t say the word gay; they want us to take action to save us all from the abomination.
I knew all this going into the convention, but still, I tried to keep an open mind. And let me tell you, actually being there and immersed in that culture opened my eyes—in a big way. I looked over a sea of thousands of cowboy hats as the smell of leather boots engulfed me. I suppressed the urge to cover my ears as the deafening chants of “USA! USA!” rose to a crescendo when Rick Perry took the stage
Issues like spending and regulation, much to my surprise, weren’t really discussed—the focus was placed squarely on social issues. When the main speeches concluded, the portion of the crowd that was interested scuttled off to a smaller room to discuss the official platform of the Texas GOP. Party delegates and members of the public were invited to voice their opinions on a variety of issues to determine how the platform would read. After a lengthy conversation about how “life matters” (translation: If you’re a pregnant woman, your life doesn’t matter because you’re essentially stripped of all rights to your own body), gay marriage came up. Texas was one of the dozen or so states that still hadn’t legalized it at the time, so I wanted to see what the GOP had to say. I could see how it could be a tricky issue for them. After all, the gay vote is pretty well established and sizable.
The discussion started with one gray-haired church lady babbling about how legalizing same-sex marriage would criminalize “her” Christianity (exactly how would that work?) and how gay people are essentially akin to murderers and rapists. Then there was a parade of more gray-haired church ladies, all of whom emphatically declared they were “deeply offended” that someone would even want to marry another person of the same sex. I rolled my eyes and didn’t think much of it. I’d heard this kind of bigoted gobbledygook from the Texas Republican Party before. Then a teenaged boy I’ll call Ryan spoke up.
Ryan said that he was a conservative and that he believed in many of the basic principles of the Party, like reducing taxes and making it easier for businesses to flourish. But he wanted everyone to know that he could no longer be a part of the Republican Party because of what had happened to his older brother.
Ryan’s brother, now in his twenties, had come out as gay a few years before. Their family was very traditional and religious and, putting it mildly, his parents did not take the news well. They believed that being gay was a choice, like a hair color or a piercing. Their son had made this sinful choice and needed mental help. So the parents sought out conversion therapy to “help him become straight” and “heal his emotional problems.” As part of this therapy, the brother was forced to accept that his feelings were evil and a sickness.
Well, guess what? The “counseling” didn’t work—and when he turned eighteen and the parents still hadn’t gotten the results they wanted, they cut him off from the family completely.
Fighting back tears, Ryan continued his story. “I haven’t seen my brother in over two years.” Describing the horrific impact that the therapy and estrangement had on his family, Ryan begged the Republican Party to consider a different stance. Ryan’s words were emotional and moving, and his pain at the loss of his brother was palpable. I thought for sure the room of people would show compassion and there’d be some crack in the veneer. Incredibly, they all sat there staring at him, with arms crossed and scowls on their faces.
Beyond disgusted and feeling physically ill, I had to leave the room. Later, back at my hotel I started doing research. I found out that reparative therapy was not just approved but endorsed by the Republican Party of Texas! I also discovered that the “Log Cabin Republicans,” a group of gay conservatives, wanted to attend the conference but were denied the right to have a booth. The official reason was that they “do not embody the Party’s platform.”1 I’ll say they don’t. Their steadfast belief in limited government, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty seems worlds away from what the current Republican Party has morphed into.
Is it any wonder that no young person wants to be called a Republican? Especially when the party platform is about as fresh as that green thing in the back of the fridge that nobody can identify (and nobody wants to smell) anymore?
You know, I used to be a Republican and proud of it. I loved wearing my elephant pin and representing the next generation at local rallies. What first attracted me to the party was being told, as a kid, that the Republican Party—you know, the guys who brought you Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan—was the party of states’ rights and individual initiative, the party that let Americans be Americans. Republicans were against federal waste and opposed to creating an underclass dependent on government handouts. They believed that Washington, D.C., was too big, the federal government too bloated, and that a lot of the important decisions should be made at the state and local levels, if by any government at all. Amen, guys. I’m all for that. So where did that go?
Sorry for the sour grapes, but the Republican Party, as it is today, does not stand for youth, and it doesn’t represent people like me. As with the Democrats, what we’re dealing with here is a group of old-school, entrenched blowhards who somehow dare to call themselves “representatives.” But just whom do they represent?
These days, most of our Republican representatives fall into one of two equally horrible categories. There are the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), the George W. Bushes, John McCains, and Marco Rubios of the party. The hawkish guys who think the world’s problems can be solved with a nuke, and that cowboy-boot-wearing, gun-toting Westerners have the responsibility to save the rest of the world from those eeeevil Muslims.
Please. RINOs are about as big-government as you can get. They yap about “downsizing Washington” but want to inject billions upon billions into the DOJ like shady, back-alley butt implants, all in the name of public safety. These guys are the kings of scare tactics. It seems like every election cycle they give us a new country that we’re all supposed to hate, and if we don’t beef up our military—right now—Country X will find a way to nuke us all. The RINOs allege that the only way America will be safe is if we open up more military bases around the world and put more boots on the ground. Hah! Remember the iron triangle we talked about? We know their motivation.
Then there are the religious loons, the so-called Religicans. These are the Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabees of the Party. Just like the RINOs, these idiots claim they want to get government out of our lives but then advocate for the exact opposite. They yap endlessly about abortion, gay wedding cakes, and why every drug user in America should be locked up. They aren’t on a mission from God; they’re on a mission to control everything about the way we live, even the things we choose—and have the full legal right—to do in our own homes.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with having a little religion in your government—as long as it’s your religion. But if the government wants to adopt a god you don’t believe in and practices you find disagreeable (and sometimes physically harmful), well then, there’s going to be a problem. That’s why my man Thomas Jefferson fought so hard to keep church and state separate. And especially today, with our country being one of the most diverse in the world, it really makes no sense to want to impose a religious agenda.
Let’s make a deal, all you representatives of the Religious Right. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution, take a history class, and maybe then we’ll consider voting for you.
And then there’s President Donald Trump, who ran as another type of Republican entirely—but one that the youth vote got excited about. With his rhetoric about deporting millions and banning Muslims from entering our country, it’s no surprise that he received only 37 percent of the youth vote.2
Meanwhile, with these nimrods at the wheel, the GOP wonders why the youth isn’t flocking to join their party. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? The frustrating thing, and what perhaps makes it harder just to discount them summarily, is that many of the religious loon types actually have small-government stances on taxes and other fiscal issues, but as we saw in Texas, those topics are rarely mentioned.
Meanwhile, with these nimrods at the wheel, the GOP wonders why the youth isn’t flocking to join their party. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? The frustrating thing, and what perhaps makes it harder just to discount them summarily, is that many of the religious loon types actually have small-government stances on taxes and other fiscal issues, but as we saw in Texas, those topics are rarely mentioned.
Of course, there are a few sensible, small-government conservatives in Washington (how ya doin’, Rand Paul?), but these guys are consistently belittled and overshadowed by the powerful RINOs and Religicans. Unfortunately, our political system incentivizes Republicans to fall into one of the two categories. It’s much easier for them to raise money by drumming up support from the religious base and other major donors by harping on hot-button social issues and inciting fear using terrorism (Trump, anyone?) to distract us from the real issues. Heaven forbid they address the problems of budget sequestration or the coming entitlement tsunami. No, that just isn’t as sexy.
So, if the Republican Party is so bad, does that mean we should all be Democrats?
Snort! Oh, man. I crack myself up sometimes.
If you’ve paid any attention up to this point, you know how disastrous that would be. Even though big-government policies championed by liberal Democrats sound nice, they are usually destructive as hell in practice. Democrats basically “buy” votes by promising citizens government goodies: free food, free phones, free Internet, free college, free cash, and other irresistable-sounding “entitlements.” Then they conveniently never talk about how all of this will be paid for. It’s like planning a luxurious tropical vacation with a boyfriend who never gets off your couch. Sounds fabulous, but you know you’re going to end up footing the bill.
Just like the Republicans, the Democrats will say or do anything necessary to climb that same greasy pole of power. Lying is the norm in D.C., and sometimes the lies are downright criminal. But instead of being shunned by society or locked up, like normal criminals, members of the political class get away with it.
Hillary Clinton was caught blatantly lying multiple times. Remember when she tried to blame the Benghazi attack on a YouTube video? Thanks to State Department documents, we now know that was a bigger lie than when I promised my mom I wouldn’t sneak out past curfew on prom night.3 Only, I got grounded for life, and Hillary faced zero consequences. And we now also know that she flat-out lied about using a private e-mail server to send sensitive national security e-mails while she was Secretary of State. Keep in mind that this is the woman who received the Democratic nomination in 2016. As a woman myself, man, I’d love to see a Madam President, but this ain’t the chick.
It’s not just the lying. Politicians seem to come from a group that doesn’t think the rules apply to them. Republican congressman Michael Grimm from New York pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion in 2014, causing him to resign from office shortly thereafter. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, another Republican, pleaded guilty to providing $3.5 million in hush money to cover up wrongdoing in his past; Hastert was allegedly trying to hide the sexual abuse of a minor from decades ago, when he was a high school teacher.4 And it’s not just Richard Nixon who had a fondness for illegal surveillance. Laura Richardson, a Democrat from California, was found guilty on seven counts of violating U.S. House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence, and tampering with witness testimony.5 Even the president are corrupt.
When Barack Obama worked for the law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland in 1996, he sued Citibank for not making toxic loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act.6 Then, after becoming president, his administration sued Citibank for having made those exact same loans. Another glorious role model for the kids. You can grow up to be president some day! Just get really good at lying and cheating, and generally being the type of little brat who drives Mommy to drink.
Which may very well be the root of the problem. The power of political office tends to attract just the kind of people we don’t want representing us. What kind of person voluntarily goes through all the trouble of campaigning—which usually requires giving up your normal day job, taking a low salary, and living in roach-infested America’s Best Value Inns while on the trail—all without an ounce of certainty that he’ll win? Sure, sometimes it’s people who are actually passionate about effecting change in our system for the good of the people. Most of the time, though, it’s narcissistic asshats more interested in their own celebrity status than the well-being of the people they’re elected to serve. There’s an old adage that politics is like Hollywood for ugly people. It’s up to us to make sure we elect those who actually have substance—the Depps and De Niros, not the Steve-Os and Snookis.
In a lot of ways, the Ds and Rs are just the same wolf in different-colored sheep’s clothing—and the similarities go far beyond their constant lying and sense of entitlement.
Take Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush—each of whom represents the Establishment wing of their party—for example. The two couldn’t be more different, right?
HAH!
Besides the fact that they both hail from political dynasties and look smashing in pantsuits, these two have a whole lot more in common. They’re even funded by some of the same megadonors. More than sixty of the richest Americans contributed to both of their campaigns—from racetrack owners to bankers to hedge fund managers.7
But the commonalities don’t stop there. Here are a few other ways in which Hillary and Jeb appear eerily similar:8
• They both supported mass National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance and the Patriot Act.
• They both support the failed War on Drugs.
• They both support bailing out big banks.
• They both support the dangerous Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
• They both support the death penalty.
• They both do a wicked Adele at karaoke. (Or so I heard from those on the campaign trail.)
I could go on, but the point here is that two political figures, each of whom supposedly represents the pinnacle of their respective parties and complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, are actually quite similar.
Both also have blatantly corrupt corporate ties. And I’m not just talking about receiving generous donations from super PACs. I’m referring to the toxic mixture of corporate interests and government policy. Jeb served on the board of five major companies that have faced class-action lawsuits, some of which involve fraud, while Hillary was on the board of directors of Walmart for six years.9 She also hired a former Monsanto lobbyist to run her 2016 presidential campaign. Can you say conflict of interest?
Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing bad about candidates having a background in the private sector. After all, if they’re going to run the world’s largest economy, they should know how to run a successful business. But there’s definitely cause for concern when politicians get supercozy with monster corporations. Remember the Obama Solyndra scandal?10
Back in 2009, the green-energy, solar panel manufacturing company received a $535 million loan from the federal government. During a highly publicized visit to Solyndra’s headquarters, Obama proudly declared that the company was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future,” which is liberal-speak for “financially unstable”—a fact that Obama’s Office of Management and Budget reportedly knew at the time the megaloan was issued.
Why would he spend taxpayer money to make such an obviously bad investment? Billionaire George Kaiser, whose family foundation was one of Solyndra’s main investors, was also a major Obama fund-raiser. What’s even more insulting is how adamant Obama was about getting big money out of politics during his presidential campaigns—like he could just say it and we’d be gullible enough to believe him. In November 2007, he said, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. They will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President.”11
Uh-huh.
Here’s the bottom line: The Republican and Democratic Parties both suck big-time, and have been pulling fast ones on the American people for decades. They don’t offer us hope, and they don’t offer us change—they just offer the same old dirty, corrupt tricks. They lie to us, they deceive us, and sometimes they even break the law—all to further their own political careers or fatten their wallets.
The two-party system has caused us as voters to make inaccurate assumptions about candidates just because they have an R or a D next to their names on the ballot. Newsflash: Not every Republican will lower taxes, and not every Democrat will end our foreign entanglements. This is why we have to open our eyes and diligently examine all politicians before giving them our votes. And that doesn’t mean choosing the one with the million-dollar smile or the one we’d most like to have a beer with.
The good news is, we appear to be stepping up to the plate. Many American voters are waking up, realizing how corrupt the two-party system has become, and making their voices heard at the polls. In 2016, Libertarian Gary Johnson received more than 3 percent of the popular vote. I know, I know, 3 percent doesn’t sound like much—but that’s 4 million votes “stolen” from Clinton and Trump. The 2016 election was the strongest showing in twenty years for independent candidates.12
In the 2012 presidential election, former Texas congressman Ron Paul practically started a revolution among voters who were fed up with the political status quo. Even though Paul ran as a Republican, he openly gave the finger to the establishment and didn’t comply with the Party platform, which reeked of dirty money. Bucking the party system, Paul represented a different breed of conservative.
I’ll never forget when, during a 2011 Republican primary debate, the congressman made the case for legalizing drugs. “You have the right to do things that are very controversial,” Paul said. When the moderator tried to discount the idea, saying, “Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?” Paul turned his attention to the audience. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said. With a strong dose of sarcasm, he continued, “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”13
The crowd burst into applause. Meanwhile, the RINOs standing next to him onstage began sweating profusely.
It was clear that despite all the attempts to downplay him, Paul had mass appeal. He ended up placing third in the Iowa caucuses with 21 percent of the vote, and second in New Hampshire with 22 percent.14 Not too shabby for a “fringe” candidate.
It’s no surprise that the Republican Party did everything possible to take out Paul. Just days before the Iowa caucuses, Paul had a commanding lead in all the polls. Yet establishment Republicans in the state, like Representative Steve King and Governor Terry Barnstad, tried to convince the public that a vote for Paul was a wasted vote.15 These same individuals tried sabotaging the Paul campaign by claiming the congressman would lose to Obama if the GOP nominated him. It seemed like everyone hated Paul—except the voters.
We saw the same thing in the very next presidential election cycle, but it was Bernie Sanders shaking up the Democrats’ status quo. Representing the antiestablishment, Sanders was even beating Hillary in many polls, despite the media constantly belittling him.
These alternative candidates are striking a chord with voters’ growing disgust with the political class. Many of them end up settling for what they see as the lesser of two evils, begrudgingly casting a vote or even staying home on Election Day. But a growing number are actually stepping outside of the traditional red-versus-blue dichotomy and voting for a third party. Bucking the two-party system makes sense in many ways. Only two choices? We wouldn’t accept that with shoes, so why with politics?
But just like the Rs and the Ds, third parties come with their own set of problems…
My mom is a Democrat and my dad is a Republican (yep, you guessed it, they’re divorced now), and I never completely agreed with either of them when it came to politics. I was usually able to find nuggets of value in each of their ideologies, but a lot of the time, when they got to rambling, I’d be this close to asking for a DNA test. I vaguely knew of alternatives to the mainstream Big Two, but I never really explored them as a kid.
That all changed when I was a high school student, and I heard Ron Paul speak at an event in New Hampshire. Prior to attending this speech, I was made to believe that Paul was a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon. The mainstream media portrayed him as a crazy man whose ideas were highly dangerous to the nation. But I knew enough about the libertarian philosophy to see that it aligned—at least somewhat—with my own views, so I showed up at Paul’s speech to see what the man had to say.
As he went on about the state of the nation and what he thought needed to change, I found myself thinking, “This makes so much sense!” The general gist I got from his message was: Live the way you want to live, do whatever you want to do—just don’t harm others while you’re doing it. It was like a lightbulb went off for me. Isn’t this why the Founding Fathers started the country in the first place? Amazing. It was as old—and as new—an ideology as we Americans could have.
I left the speech stunned. I had finally discovered the political party for me: I was a Libertarian!
For the next few months, I sought out the online libertarian communities and integrated myself as much as possible. I jumped into conversations on Facebook, Twitter, and in the comment sections of online news articles. I even started my own blog and Facebook page called The Libertarian Chick. Yes, I was fully on the Libertarian Party bandwagon, and I wanted everyone to know about it.
As time went on, however, I became disenchanted with the Libertarian Party members I conversed with. I noticed a general anger among them and an inability to entertain any ideas that didn’t align exactly with every last plank of the Party. Even loyal followers of my blog sent me nasty messages when I published posts that weren’t “Libertarian enough.” I have gotten cranky e-mails calling me “The Tea Party Chick,” “The Republican Chick,” “Democrat Chick,” “hippie chick,” and others that are way too mean to include in this book (my mommy is going to read this!). And it was no different on my Facebook page. When I posted an article about government welfare I was a “heartless neocon.” When I expressed support for Senator Ted Cruz I was “bought out by the Republican Party.” When I posted about legalizing hemp I was a “left-wing nut job.”
I began to notice this kind of griping going on outside of my immediate circle, too. It was at Libertarian Party rallies and fund-raisers. It was in the greater online community. The mind-set seemed to be that if you didn’t agree with every aspect of the Party platform, then you weren’t really a Libertarian. How the hell does that kind of epic closed-mindedness come from the party of freedom? Even the Big Two (or more accurately, the Entrenched Two) each have a wide spectrum of folks who can call themselves Democrats or Republicans. How was this progress?
This oppressive conformism became especially real to me when I was blocked from the official Libertarian Party Facebook page. (Yes, they blocked the Libertarian Chick—isn’t that ironic?) During the 2012 presidential campaign, the page featured an article promoting a flat tax. I wrote a comment stating that Republican primary candidate Herman Cain also supported a flat tax. I was by no means trying to endorse that wackadoo; I was simply pointing out that, like the Libertarian Party, he supported a flat tax.
Within seconds I got bombarded with rude comments, telling me I had no business being there to “spew my Republican filth.” At first I thought it was just a few crazies who were attacking me (it was the Internet, after all), but the nasty remarks kept coming fast and furious. I tried defending myself with comments of my own, but it was pointless; I was outnumbered. Later that day, when I went back to the page, I found out I wasn’t able to post comments anymore because an administrator had blocked me.
God forbid that anyone express an opposing opinion in a political forum (gasp!).
The Libertarian Party has a big problem on its hands. The doctrinaire nature of its members—requiring litmus tests on such topics as immigration, tax policy, government spending, and social issues—is largely why they have been unable to effect major change. It is clear that Libertarians are principled people. They have strong convictions, which is what led them to break out of the two-party system in the first place. But clinging to these convictions without allowing any dissent is what hinders them from getting anything done.
I have spoken to many sanctimonious Libertarians who say they will never support any candidate other than <<Insert Name Of Some Abstruse Libertarian Party Representative Nobody Has Ever Heard Of>>. Like that could do any good. And anything positive I might have to say about a mainstream candidate who might have some libertarian tendencies but isn’t running with an L next to his or her name usually sends them into a full-blown hissy fit. Doesn’t sound a whole lot different from being locked into the two-party system, does it?
Libertarianism is supposed to be about embracing individualism. That means all voices should be welcome at the table—even those that don’t conform to every last one of the Party’s planks. But unfortunately, the stubborn dogmatism has made “Live the way you want to live” OK only if you’re living the way the Party wants you to live. And in that way, the Libertarian Party has become no more representative than the Republicans and Democrats.
Now don’t get me wrong—there’s a lot about the Libertarians I love dearly. I still write my blog, The Libertarian Chick, and I try to abide by the “live and let live” philosophy. But I’m not—and never will be—a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party.
Other third parties are just as bad, too. Even the über-utopian Green Party has problems, and I’ve experienced them firsthand. In college I briefly became involved with the Green Party Club for a solar energy event. I mean, who outside of an Exxon-Mobil boardroom can argue with promoting alternative energy? But my experience with the students in the club can only be described as awful. They knew I wasn’t left leaning on many issues, so they made it clear right away that I wouldn’t be socially accepted by them—even though I was volunteering at their club meeting to help them! The members knew about my blog and continually referred to me as “Paul-Bot.” Not that I really care (again, I heart Ron Paul), but still, it was annoying. And when the week of the big event rolled around—surprise, surprise—they “forgot” to invite me to the club dinner. The club members made it clear that because I wasn’t fully on board with their entire agenda, I would never be accepted by them and would always be treated like an outsider. Aren’t hippies supposed to be open and inclusive? I was on the exact opposite side of the aisle from the Republicans, yet I found myself stuck in the same old BS.
It doesn’t matter so much which political party you align with. Just the act of subscribing to an established political philosophy and trying to fit into a large group can be problematic. Political parties inevitably lead to groupthink, which is basically what happens within a group when the desire for harmony with the people around you results in irrational thoughts and actions.
William H. Whyte Jr. first coined the term groupthink in the March 1952 issue of Fortune magazine:
We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity—it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity—an open, articulate philosophy, which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.16
We’ve all fallen victim to this kind of mob mentality at one time or another. Back when I was a junior in high school, a girl in the popular crowd inexplicably took an interest in me and invited me to a sleepover with her friends. Ironically enough, this gaggle of girls was known as the Group. Given my social status at the time, this was an exciting event for me. I knew I was in when Claire, the Regina George of the Group, invited me to their chat room on AOL Instant Messenger a few nights later (what we used pre-Facebook). This became a nightly routine; we would all log on and gossip for hours.
These girls had something to say about everyone, and most of it was mean. I had never been much of a gossiper (who the hell cares if Mindy gave Jeff a blowjob in the movie theater last week?), but I was desperate to impress the Group, so I went along. I started saying things I wouldn’t normally say. When one girl would hurl an insult about how ugly her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend was, I’d jump right in, trying to top it with an even nastier comment. The meaner my comments were, the more the Group seemed to like me. It was a disturbing bonding experience.
A couple weeks later, during a nightly chat-room session, one of the girls brought up Hannah, a girl in our grade who was known for being socially awkward and wearing weird clothes. “That girl has a face only a mother could love. Did you hear that she lost her virginity to Mike last week? Apparently he screwed her while his mom was home. What a slut.”
Hannah and I had become friends that year when we were paired as lab partners in biology (nothing brings people together like desperately trying not to fail a class in which you are both mentally challenged). She was an aspiring fashion designer with an inexplicable love for old thermoses and black tea. An oddball for sure, but I was an oddball too. Inevitably we had become close.
A few days before the Group brought her up during the chat room, Hannah had told me all about the incident with Mike while we pretended to be working on our lab. She described how awkward the whole thing was and that she regretted it. Of course, I promised not to tell anyone. Cross my heart and hope to die.
I valued my friendship with Hannah. But in that moment, in the chat room, the only thing on my mind was impressing the Group. And without thinking, I typed something to the effect of, “Haha! I’m lab partners with her. She told me ALL about getting banged by Mike.” I then proceeded to tell the girls all the dirty details.
Within a matter of days, everyone in our grade knew. Hannah became a laughingstock and a “whore.” And of course, it eventually got back to her that I had been the one who’d spilled the beans. She never spoke to me again, aside from short exchanges necessary to finish our bio lab.
I had fallen victim to the social pressure of groupthink. Because I was so desperate to fit in with the Group and feel a sense of conformity and safety in numbers, I’d tossed my morals right out the window.
And FYI, my status as a member of the Group didn’t last long. Eventually they found out that I was really a nerd who spent most Friday nights watching Futurama reruns with my dog, and I never heard from them again. Oh, well.
The exclusive mind-set I experienced in the Libertarian Party and the Green Party seemed to be symptoms of the same phenomenon: Even though many of these third parties pride themselves on being alternative and individualistic, loyalty to the group usually results in the loss of independent thinking. After all, raising controversial issues or disagreeing with the group could result in being ostracized.
Sounds kind of like a cult, right? Did you read George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in high school? In case you did not, it takes place in a totalitarian superstate called Oceania, where the government controls and sees everything. Citizens of Oceania are supposed to speak “Newspeak,” a language created and controlled by the state with the goal of stamping out individuality and self-expression. A vital part of Newspeak is “doublethink,” when people accept two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Psychologist Irving Janis, famous for his study of groupthink, would often refer to Orwell’s novel when explaining what happens in group situations:
Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to the deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.17
All of this is to say that when people feel allegiance to any party—whether it be to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Communist Party, or the United States Pirate Party (yes, that’s a real thing)—they are vulnerable to falling victim to groupthink.
Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four way back in 1949, which goes to show that people throughout time have been pretty consistent in their desires to band together in order to feel safe, be it from prehistoric saber-toothed tigers or illegal aliens crossing the border. Whenever we feel threatened by the unknown, our natural instinct is to follow the path that promises the best chance for survival. Many times in world history that basic urge has led to folks handing over their freedom in exchange for security. So it’s not hard to see how Orwell could conjure a story about the horrors of totalitarianism, a direction one could say our own government is headed in today.
You may have heard the expression that everything old is new again. It’s a pretty common refrain when it comes to fashion trends, but can also very easily be applied to the current state of our two-party political system. Hemline lengths and round-versus pointed-toe shoes have gone in and out of fashion favor through the centuries and always seem to put women squarely in camp Goodie Goodie Two Shoes or Wicked Witch of the West. It all depends how designers decide to make us march down the runway to the beat of their drums, never our own, because that would be bad for business. If everyone started deciding for herself that she no longer wanted to be a slave to trends and began following her own sense of personal style, instead of emptying her wallet every three months when the start of a new retail season signals the need for a whole new wardrobe, the clothing industry would topple off its stilettos and fall to its knees.
Unfortunately, our country’s political party system has more in common with the fashion industry than just the billions of dollars at stake.18 It, too, relies on people blindly following what the “experts” tell them. It’s a self-supporting ecosystem, in which the greatest power is derived from politicians feeding off Americans who don’t ask questions or demand to be heard. Individuality and independent thought are the death knell to the two-party system every bit as much as to the fashion industry.
And, likewise, everything old is indeed new again when the mere notion of a party system is just as repugnant to so many of us today as it was to the Founding Fathers. Having witnessed the eighteenth-century version of hate ads and personal attacks on the European political stage, the drafters of the Constitution had every intention of dissuading Americans from joining in the same orgy of power and influence.19 If we’re going to turn this thing around and get America back on track, perhaps we’d all benefit from taking a few history lessons as well.
“You’re not a member of any party? What planet are you from anyway?”
You say: “I’m from Planet Freedom; I don’t align myself with any party because they’re all flawed and corrupt. I don’t fall for groupthink because I think for myself!”
“So what do you stand for anyway?”
You say: “I stand for independence from government intrusion and personal freedom. I’m ahead of my time and waiting for the rest of you to catch up with me!”
“So you recommend young people not vote for anyone?”
You say: “No! Use your brain and make the decision that is right for you. If I tell you who to vote for, I’m as bad as the groupthink brainwashers who are dividing the country.”