Our system of two major political parties has produced much contention and a surprising amount of weirdness. The former is obvious from our history; the latter might be just my peculiar obsession. Let me first elaborate on what I mean: what is or is not the weirdness that seems to bother me.

You would not expect a donkey to crush you with its front hoofs or an elephant to kick you with its rear legs. Yet both the Republican and Democratic parties switch their attack modes indiscriminately. In sync with these switches are reversals in strongly held ideological positions and traditional policy positions. There are so many examples of these inconsistencies that it is hard to envision how anybody can cling to party loyalty for more than one election cycle. Here are a few samples that make my point:
• A Democratic President ordered the only use of nuclear weapons in war (Truman); and a second Democratic President threatened their use in defense of a territorial protectorate dating back to the Monroe Doctrine (Kennedy).
• The Republican President who spoke most eloquently against entitlements strongly supported “a welfare system structured not to trap the poor in dependency but to enable them to escape poverty” (Nixon). That same President, an avowed anti-communist, opened relationships with communist China.
• Two Republican Presidents in succession raised taxes in order to forestall impending debt crises (Reagan and Bush 41).
• A Democratic President eliminated the barrier between traditional and investment banking (the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act) which put individual deposits at risk in the market for financial securities like derivatives and, in great part, enabled the Great Recession of contemporary times (Clinton). The same President sponsored reform of the welfare system to reduce long term dependency and promote re-employment education and job placement services.
• A Republican President proposed a plan that would have reformed the nation’s immigration policies and granted a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (Bush 43). That same President sponsored a huge expansion of the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and deficit spending.
• A Democratic President, with a Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature, was able to advance a healthcare program based upon the Republican proposition of mandated private insurance for everyone (Obama).
So what can we construe from this short list of paradoxes? Democrats are not always wisps on foreign policy, anathema to business interests, and sublimely socialist on domestic issues. Republicans, on the other hand, are not the only war mongers and staunch supporters of reduced taxation, of limited government, of mindless or insensitive constriction in entitlements, and of immigration reform that both curtails and deports illegals. Given the actual track record of the Parties, what can be said about the relevance of ideology and consistency in party politics? Perhaps not much! And maybe not weird either.

We are accustomed to politicians changing positions. Sometimes the opportunism behind these changes is so apparent as to be ridiculous and the welcome gist of satire. But they are tolerated as “politics as usual,” and not considered weird. And I would agree—though with some stipulation. Presidents in particular should not be wedded to a party-line because they are elected to serve all parties in the electorate. For the most part, I believe we elect people as much for their character as for their policy positions. In other words, we trust them and entrust our government to their honesty and wisdom. For example, in 2008 we elected a “progressive” who promised to change the divisive atmosphere in Washington among his many campaign promises. His first attempt to create bipartisan support for his progressive agenda was health care reform based upon a decades old Republican proposal already enacted in Massachusetts. The Republicans were irate for he had stolen their only stake in the game. The Democrats were disappointed their President did not put forth a new government program along the lines of “Medicare for all.” He even killed the so-called “public option.” But, at the time, the President commandeered his party with a 70% approval rating and apparently large coattails. Besides, Congressional Democrats seemed to enjoy rubbing their majority in the face of Republican opposition. But in fact they found it difficult to embrace the President’s healthcare reform as evidenced by their unwillingness to defend it in the mid-term elections. The Democrats won a Pyrrhic victory: they passed healthcare reform, but on the basis of a private insurance market that they genetically detested. Republicans lost the battle at the hands of their own sword and, in the process, lost the opportunity to defuse new regulatory restrictions on that private market. Neither party got what they wanted out of the healthcare debate. But the American people got Obamacare with all its benefits and regulatory baggage. So what is so weird about a new program that neither party fully supported? Well, nothing really! The party of Lincoln, remember, was not wholly enthused with the civil rights legislature of the 60s, and the Democrats who passed it lost the Southern portion of their party for generations.

Democracy is messy. Change comes from elections, but not wholly formed. Debates in Congress will push and pull new proposals into almost unrecognizable forms. When passed by majorities in both Houses and signed by the President, new programs may be established but may still not be in final form. Civil rights laws from the 1960’s are still being amended in legislatures and clarified in courts. Medicare has seen more than a few modifications over time. Voting rights, housing discrimination, free trade treaties, tax law, and so many other policies will continue to be refined and debated. Democracies and their governance will always be—and must be—in flux. Parties change sides. Liberal prescriptions for change become conservative positions in another era, and vice versa. And Presidents can be out of sync with party ideology, especially when they respond to their perception of the general welfare. So what is the weirdness I find in American politics today?

The determinant factor in a democracy has to be the will of the people. When our elected officials do not respond to the public will, weirdness has entered into our democratic reality. Whether its gun laws, immigration reform, tax law inequities, campaign finance reform or a host of other issues, there seems to be a disconnect between the electorate and elected officials. The latter seem more intent on serving minority interest and campaign funding sources than the American voters (reference “The Clash of Minorities”). Strict party line voting is another type of weirdness in our democracy. About two thirds of the electorate tends to vote for the same party in every election without regard to changes in platform. Perhaps voters are not paying attention to changing party positions. Perhaps they simply are not listening to the issues being debated or are only paying attention to the arguments with which they already agree. Democracy is messy and in constant flux. If we pay no attention to that flux, then we become responsible for the ensuing chaos. As we enter the season of Presidential politics, we will see politicians taking positions without substance (“Obamacare is a job killer”) and saying things that boggle the mind (“self-deportation” or “jihadists will kill us all”). Politicians may do whatever they think will get them attention and possibly elected. We, as the keepers of our democracy, must be attentive to all sides of an issue and vote our best judgment. It is not the political voices we hear, but the internal voice of reasoned reflection and conscience that can eliminate the weirdness of American politics.

Democracy boasts many freedoms. But individual freedom comes at a price. That price is accountability. Blind party loyalty suspends individual accountability—and therefore freedom—to a collective. The virtual public forum where all sides of an issue can be weighed is in each of our minds. Disregard the abstract nonsense about the “destruction of our way of life” or the promise to “make America great again.” Listen carefully to both sides of a real issue—like immigration or tax reform—and imagine yourself on the other side of your chosen position. Only when you can understand an opposing view will you be in a position to make an informed judgment and vote your conscience. You will then be in that public forum where democracies live and evolve. You will also help free me from my obsession with the weirdness of American politics.