In the 1960’s I was a very young news consumer in a very small market when news sources were very limited. John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK), ABC, NBC, and CBS convinced me to become a Democrat. There were three TV broadcast stations, AM radio, and newspapers, both daily and Sunday, delivering news of the town, county, state, country, and the world. And sports. All of us in my world heard the same news from the same places but often reached different conclusions. It was a perfect information world.

Books became a new source. The first mistake was Ian Fleming and “Bond, James Bond” books where an entirely new amazing world was revealed. Classics were read, too, like “Robinson Crusoe”, “Swiss Family Robinson”, and “Tom Sawyer” when the young brain wasn’t ready for Twain’s message. The world of print was an escape from farm life and a fantastic enhancement to the rote memory of 1960’s public schools. All of which did nothing to change my adolescent political belief.

Attending Earth Day Celebrations–including the very first national one in 1970–  and “No Nukes” rallies further cemented my Democratic Leanings. But subtle damage was done to the rabidness of those “leanings” by exposure to two books: “Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile”, by Ralph Nader, 1965, and more importantly “The Hidden Persuaders”, by Vance Packard, 1957.  They planted seeds of doubt, both of them, seeds fitting the rebellious nature of a young man looking at a world he did not understand.

But…with limited news sources, and a clearly defined two-party-only political landscape, it took several years for the seeds to grow. In fact, it took many years for the tree of Independence to grow higher than the bush of partisanship. It was at a Liberal Arts College, on the third floor of the girls dorm, when the evils of political purity began to be exposed. College students often argue just to argue. We called it “Debating”, and considered it an essential, unstructured part of a normally de rigueur education. It was during these ad hoc sessions the words of Twain, Nader, Packard, and others finally came into focus. This budding New Belief System (NBS) wasn’t earth shattering like The Moral Imperative of Kant, but it was more secular, more relevant, more down-to-earth, and a complement to philosophical mind bending. It became apparent a Capitalistic, Democratic Society needed both Naders and Kants to make sense. Great. Now what?

Life took its course with marriage, family, births, and deaths without the NBS fading but also without NBS making a big difference, except in my personal life. The faults of both political parties had been revealed by the NBS but so? Didn’t an intelligent person have to be a D or an R? It was simple inertia keeping me a responding member of the Democratic Party, and when Republican thoughts entered my mind, a feeling of disloyalty often followed. Ugh.

This long story needs quick completion, and a point, so here is my opinion, and mine only: No one should be a fanatical, devoted supporter of any political party. This morning’s on-line newspaper’s “letters to the editor” contained one praising a certain individual for voting consistently with the individual’s party. When I researched their voting record, it had evolved over time from nearly bipartisan to highly partisan, voting over 90 per cent of the time for the party line. My amygdala, part of the limbic system, lit up immediately and produced an audible: “That’s ass-backwards.”

I am now a devoted* Independent with Liberal Leanings**. It’s a result of the process engendered by the NBS: growing, learning, thinking, and applying. NBS was also nurtured by more information and more knowledge about politics. It is a rough and tumble business driven by money, fame, ego, and power. The Moral Imperative? Bah humbug. Public service? We measure it in dollars, now.

The reason for a two-party simple is clear: Money works with and against other money. Period. Imagine how hard it would be if there were three political hands*** dipping into the political pot.

With the advent of the internet and instant communication, there is no reason for anyone not to see the corrupted, misdealing, self-serving, nature of our two political parties, the system, and their candidates. So why support them? We have to support someone, yes?

No.

NO!

*Is it ironic, given my point?

**just means more liberal than conservative leanings, but I am ambidextrous (sic).

***Or more. It’s harder to “politically profiteer” in parliamentary governments.