8 Provocations for Those Who Believe Both Political Parties Suck

Are you tired of the political circus? Do you find yourself disillusioned by the lack of representation for your beliefs? If so, you're not alone. I, too, share your frustration.

I am a pragmatist.

I am a scientist.

I'm skeptical of media reports that lack sufficient evidence. I trust, but my trust comes with conditions. However, I always begin with the assumption of positive intent.

I'm disappointed with both major political parties. They seem more interested in scoring points by showing allegiance to their own party, hoping to win votes from the party’s biggest fans. And they hope to gain bonus points with disingenuous, theatrical demonstrations of how they will battle the other party.

What I yearn for is a political party or candidate who embodies the qualities I value. Honesty, even when uncomfortable. Transparency, even when inconvenient. A willingness to listen, even when challenging. A commitment to evidence-based decision-making, especially when the issue is complex.

I often change my view as new information is acquired, and biases and conflicts of interest become apparent. On foreign aid to particular countries. On being for and against war. On citizens accused of misconduct and crimes. On how much you get to attribute problematic actions now and in the future on what happened during childhood. I want a political party and candidate who can show the same ability to be persuadable, even if it is temporarily inconvenient.

Victor Garcia, used with permission

I voted for Democratic candidates most of my life. Yet, a few years ago, I realized neither party represents people like me. People who judge candidates based on what they have done in office (who cares about their free time antics), and what they accomplished (not what they look like). I am worn down from being alienated by a party I once identified with.

I am a guy — so I am often told my comments don’t matter. I am White — and often the target of tropes that I can be dismissed because of my race (definition of racism: harmful or unfair things that people say, do, or think based on the belief that their own race makes them more intelligent, good, moral, etc. than people of other races). I grew up with a single mother who didn’t get child support in a lower middle-class situation — but I am often told to “check my privilege.” I spent years of education and training to help humanity. But that doesn’t matter. I had my share of early (and late) trauma, loss, and adversity just like most do (some of which I publicly describe in articles and books). But that doesn’t matter.

After years of alienating pragmatists such as myself, I am often asked to choose the lesser of evils. Well, the sources of problematic ideas and precedents keep changing. Each party fuels the extreme margins of the other. Extreme members have the loudest voices and the biggest platforms.

I am not broken. I am discouraged. I am waiting for a party, or at least a candidate, that can adequately represent people like me.

There is no political party in the United States for people like me. Who among other things:

1. Believe strongly in social progress, caring for those who cannot sufficiently care for themselves and protecting those who are unfairly harmed.

2. Carry a low-grade libertarian streak who believes government should aim for minimal intrusion into citizen’s private lives and respect individual differences (who people are and how they live). Which means actively rebelling against threads of totalitarianism.

In the broadest sense, totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression.

3. Rely on scientific evidence and data when available for high-quality decisions. When you fail to acknowledge where sex differences do and do not exist, when you fail to entertain alternative hypotheses and explanations for unequal outcomes among demographic groups, you are no longer a party that holds scientific evidence as a hallmark feature. Consider this scientific meta-analysis of muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance in men and women with a sample of over 100,000 individuals:

Sex differences were large for upper body…and lower body…muscular strength tests. However, total-body tests had the largest effect size.

Consider this succinct summary of personality differences:

The probability that a randomly picked individual will be correctly classified as male or female based on knowledge of their global personality profile is 85% (after correcting for the unreliability of the personality tests).

This is a topic ripe for dialogue. An honest depiction would be a series of overlapping bell curves where on many qualities, the average rating is higher for men or women, depending on the target (such as compassion, kindness, self-disclosure, emotional stability, aggression, or impulsivity). Which means it is important to consider individuals more than group memberships.

4. Believe heterodox ideas and dissent are essential to finding the best ideas, expressing the best ideas, and leading with the best ideas. Republicans have recently shown that they cannot handle dissent. Democrats also have a long history of forcefully pushing for unanimous thinking.

Both blues and reds let many of us down. Which motivates us to explore topics and policies independently, without a semblance of group loyalty. But don’t get me wrong, it’s lonely and disappointing. And we are often punished, especially if you are like me working in an academic setting. And yet, dissenters in group situations pave the way toward better solutions - reminding people of the infectious influence of biases in the decision-making process, liberating people to raise concerns, ask questions, and wonder what options have been prematurely neglected or ruled out.

I remain disappointed in Republicans and Democrats and their moral hypocrisies, where myside bias overrides common sense and evidence.

It is time to show that group allegiances are earned and lost, and never assured. It is time to rise up when problems and dysfunctions emerge in your group. Through dissent and defiance, we increase the odds of an influx of better ideas and rational solutions.

Provocations

1. What if we voted for policies, not personalities?

2. What if we demanded that politicians spend a year living on minimum wage before they can make decisions about it?

3. What if we required political ads to be fact-checked before being aired?

4. What if we made it mandatory for politicians to hold regular town halls, where any question is allowed, in their constituencies?

5. What if we replaced political parties and their monetary backing with a system based on individual merit?

6. What if we made voting mandatory, like in Australia?

7. What if we required politicians to have a background in the field they're overseeing (e.g., the Secretary of Education must have been a teacher)?

8. What if we had a "none of the above" option on ballots, forcing a new election with new candidates if it gets the most votes?

These are not easy questions, but necessary. By pondering them, we can become not just better voters, but better citizens. We can create a political landscape that truly represents a diverse citizenship focusing not just on the surface level but deep and hidden levels:

And perhaps, by tackling these questions, we can find a way to bridge the divide that currently separates us.

If you enjoyed this newsletter, please leave a ❤️. Better yet, support my work as a paid subscriber.

And if you want to meet for an individual meeting about anything including science, writing, well-being, college, mentoring, consultation, or life advice, click here to sign up.

Dr. Todd B. Kashdan is an author of several books including The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively (Avery/Penguin) and Professor of Psychology and Leader of The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University. Connect on: Twitter or Facebook or Linkedin or Instagram

Read Past Issues Here Including: