Political parties undermine discussion, voters' minds

Editor,

The people of the U.S. have been making a mistake for 200 years. It started out small, like most mistakes. All they did was fail to listen. Unfortunately, the speaker they failed to listen to had something very important to say: "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

George Washington said these words. But they weren't just words; they were a warning, a warning that all of us failed to heed. It was an albeit long warning of which most high school English teachers today would label as a run-on sentence, but the power, prophecy and poignancy of these words from the farewell speech of our first president still merit our attention.

Political parties are a common practice among democratic nations. They serve to organize people into a common purpose to accomplish goals according to their common interests. By allowing us to condense our views into a few candidates or more, parties allow us to make efficient decisions about our country's leaders. With a simple title, people are seemingly able to easily tell what the views, opinions and ideas are of any candidate.

Unfortunately, these advantages come with a steep cost. How much time do voters actually take to research information about their candidates? How much time is wasted in Congress with bickering between parties? How often are great ideas lost through partisan bias? How often do representatives and senators vote in a manner contrary to their beliefs so that they can advance in their party? Congressional leaders and party whips keep their fellow party members in line, restricting the country's leadership to two narrow schools of thought. The country's leaders are handpicked by a few wealthy citizens who can afford to give campaign contributions, attend party conventions and drop names down the proper connection lines.

Instead of a broad collection of intelligent, creative leaders intent on the well-being of the country, we have a limited two-party system, streamlined over years of practice to paralyze open discussion and the minds of our voters and our nation.

David Funnell

UNM student