PARTEIGENOSSE CITIZEN

In my erstwhile entry Parteigenosse Philosopher (posted on this blog on April 7^th, 2013) I was making a legitimate point about philosophy and philosopher being necessarily non-partisan, except in times of great turmoil, when the urge and the social responsibility of being a politicized citizen outweighs contemplative detachment. As an argument to eloquent authority, I gave a most enlightening quotation from Marcus Aurelius’ Thoughts (Book I): “From my governor (I learned) to be neither of the green nor of the blue party, nor a partisan.”

Indeed, in times of relative peace and stability, it is much better for a thinking person to be politically independent (or an “Independent,” if you like), than to chain himself or herself to a political party with its obnoxious yet obligatory agenda, which tells you how to think and what to say, whether you like it or not, just because you have chosen to join that particular political party.

In some cases, especially when you have a clearly established government party and the opposition, joining a party may acquire a symbolic significance. It’s not about sharing your views with a certain political party, but whether you wish to show your support for the government, in which case you become a ruling party member, or else, you may wish to oppose it as a matter of principle, regardless of the party’s political platform, in which case you call yourself the opposition, and join some political body accordingly.

But let us talk now about a citizen who wishes to become Parteigenosse Citizen not as a symbolic act, but as a purely patriotic gesture. (You are overwhelmed by a desire to participate in the political life of the nation more actively than just through the voting process.)

How do you now go shopping for a party of your choice (unless party membership is a family tradition that you are unwilling to break, or for some other reason which has nothing to do with politics)?

Suppose you like a particular party’s stand on an issue which is of interest to you. You rush to join before you realize that there is another issue that concerns you, on which the party you are joining holds an opposing view. What then? Do you bail out, or adapt?

I say that bailing out is the only way of preventing a citizen from committing the repugnant act of hypocrisy. The only way of preserving personal integrity. (At least, for the time being!..) The only way of avoiding the slippery slope of becoming a so-called “establishment politician.”

So, what is an alternative for a public office-hungry Mr. Smith who wants to go to Washington?

It’s the hard way of not joining, but rather of becoming an independent promoter of your heart’s and mind’s cause, an independent seeker of public office.

All this is a result of my longtime contemplation on the American political process, leading me to the conclusion that in the USA today it is, I repeat, better to be an Independent than a party member.

Political parties are stupid in making up long lists of positions to be held by a party member. But why does it have to be from A to Z, when it could be a less ambitious selection distinguishing one party from the others? Let us remember the simple rule: the longer the list of dos and don’ts, the less diversity is allowed within the party for aspiring party members.

In this respect, major political parties are trying to play a pontificating Roman Catholic Church in making up such long lists of issue allegiances, but without the necessary Divine authority behind them. Thus politics becomes religion without a foundation in absolute morality. An impostor religion.

But let us make things simple and less ridiculous. If I want to be committed to a cause, it is quite probable that I am less anxious to be committed to a broad range of causes. There may be some sense in distinguishing a “liberal” from a “conservative,” but even in this case one cannot be a 100% one or 100% the other, especially when the list becomes too long.

Incidentally, we have seen an explosive reaction to the political business-as-usual, both in the United States and in Europe. Established political parties have discredited themselves enough to cause a genuine revolt among the citizenry. People are by no means stupid. They realize that the traditional distinction of classic liberals and classic conservatives is no longer in vogue. Both species within the political establishments of free countries have been surreptitiously, or not so surreptitiously, taken over by the so-called “neoconservatives” and the so-called “neoliberals,” who have somehow succeeded in rendering the classic terms meaningless by infecting them with the disease of Globalism, making the establishment parties suspiciously look alike, and leaving anti-Globalist traditional conservatives and liberals effectively locked out of their respective parties.

No wonder that the free world is increasingly becoming radicalized, with the people everywhere throwing their support behind controversial anti-establishment parties and candidates, with a frightening possibility of unintended consequences looming large on the horizon.

Where can a traditionally-minded conservative or liberal go to these days? Well, I said it before and I'll say it again – become an Independent.

But wait, that may no longer be enough…

The only alternative to a world chaos of radicalism and unpredictability may be – just may be – unless it’s too late – to take those traditional parties back, and make the so-called “establishment” people-friendly…

Is that too much to ask for?..