The lines we draw: examining the inadvertent costs of a party system

Group mentality is the foundation of society. It is something we rarely scrutinize. We are born into a dozen groups based on our circumstances and will join a dozen more over our lifetime. Have you ever asked about the costs of membership?

In social terms, the benefits of groups are apparent: Clubs, schools and households cultivate communities of like-minded people who lend us a feeling of stability and belonging. Members rely on one another. You lend a hand when you are needed, and in exchange you can call on others for assistance. This exchange of services is not only a social agreement, but an economic one. When you join a gym, you agree to pay a fee in exchange for the use of equipment. In any social group, you do the same, though you may not be paying with money.

In political parties, the most valuable capital is ideological. Political parties ally based on common interests and construct a platform based on compromises about what goals to pursue. You gain the political clout of a party supporting something that resembles your way of thinking, and in exchange you lend your support to the party’s platform even where it differs from your ideals.

If you disagree, it’s for a good reason: You would prefer to advocate for a political party when it supports your interests and disagree when it does not. Some disagreement is essential: It allows a party to adjust for a change in its voter base. But a party must also suppress dissent where it threatens to create schisms, which weaken or destroy the party. This is why there is so little nuance around hot-button issues: If a two-party system can convince you that there are only two options, then whichever way you decide, you still lend your support to an established party.

The problem for many is that groups require a certain surrender of identity. Membership in a group is like being a cell in a body. A body can do things that would be impossible for individual cells by coordinating and consolidating the efforts of its parts. In the process, however, individual cells become expendable. The only necessity for the body is its own survival.

The survival of a party depends only on the continued participation of most of its members. The dissent of a small group is inconsequential so long as enough members remain to advance the goals of the party. To remain vital members of their community, to continue to reap the benefits of membership, individuals are compelled to uphold the platform of the party even when it goes against their personal beliefs. This not only encourages us to ignore our own moral compasses, but also prevents the formation of new groups that better align with our interests. However, is the formation of new groups really the answer?

Unfortunately, in the current political environment, little can be done without the weight of a party. We may never be able to dismantle parties that no longer fully represent the interests of any constituent, but what we can do is refuse to respect the party line.

We can work together with people who do not share all our views, and we can find common interests across the most hard-fought lines. We can behave as individuals with all our myriad interests instead of cogs poorly fitted in a machine that only helps us half the time.

Diversity doesn’t divide us. It allows us to find common threads with everyone around us. Nothing obligates us to vote one side of the ballot. Nothing prevents us from working alongside Democrats for workers’ rights and Republicans for individual freedoms. Nothing prevents us from devoting ourselves as wholeheartedly to safeguarding the environment as to stoking the fires of industry. Nothing except the lines we draw.

David Billig is a UF linguistics masters student. His column appears on Wednesdays.