If Politics Were A Song
If political speech were a song, every Western democracy would have politicians sing their version of the song about what life would be if they were elected. Conservative lyrics would advocate for less government and the liberty of individual freedoms. Liberal and progressive lyrics would promote a larger but kinder and gentler government that would protect the feelings of its citizens and pledge to care for those less fortunate. Some would even sing various nuanced interpretations of their particular song to entertain various sub-groups of their perceived constituency. The musical accompaniment would always be in the key of “C”— just like the sound of slot machines in the casinos.
Consider a new kind of song for our democratic republic. In human diversity, a wide range of political leanings resides somewhere along the broad political spectrum, which happens to be best represented by a horizontal straight line with a left side and a right side. As one travels toward the outside end of the line in either direction, the results become more cartoonish in a dangerous way. But for our new song, let’s agree that we will generalize the line somewhat. So here it goes . . .
Two flavors of humans develop over time, each forming its own opinions on political leanings. They represent distinct types of people, similar to how the population is divided by traits like right-handedness or left-handedness. Since we’ve already established that we are generalizing for simplicity, those few ambidextrous people are excluded from the data sample.
So, we’re left with just two ‘kinds’ of humans: Conservative humans and Liberal humans of varying degrees. Once you’ve accepted this premise, the world is suddenly understandable and fixable. Half of those humans generally sing along with the Conservative song, while the other half harmonizes with the Liberal song. How does this make the world more understandable and fixable?
Consider the United States as our test case. Incidentally, we’re also eliminating the variations that would complicate our discussion. For example, young humans tend toward the liberal side, as they are understandably less experienced and, therefore, more idealistic in their political views. In contrast, young humans in totalitarian states primarily concern themselves with survival. As the young age and reality permeates their existence, many drift toward the conservative side. These variations are also eliminated from our data sample.
If we conclude- based on the evidence- that some humans prefer and perhaps thrive with one political leaning or another, it becomes evident that neither political stance resonates with the entire population. Since it is impolite to criticize any issue without also suggesting a possible solution to the problem. . .
During campaign seasons, we already see nonstop media outlets showing graphics of America with blue and red states. Political parties dominate particular states, turning them blue or red. Why not determine whether a state is blue or red through a statewide referendum on how the citizens prefer to be governed? In the most prominent examples, California, Illinois, and New York would likely be voted into blue states, while Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming would likely be voted in as red.
How does this help us?
Aside from leading to a significant uptick in business for the moving industry, liberal humans would have an opportunity to sing along with like-minded humans, as would conservative choruses. They would be governed under like-minded state laws, and government services would be structured to serve a single constituency of like-minded citizens. Suddenly, there would be no arguments between left and right, as each state would be filled with a choir of blue or red citizens.
If someone chose to live in a state that was not his political color, he would be legally required to either not sing their chosen song or relocate to a state that promoted that song. The local government could even subsidize a move by the resident to eliminate an offending politically colored individual. Another brilliant advantage of the new musical political system would be that the representative government in a state would be compelled to represent its actual constituency to remain in office — the supposed mission of a representative government.
It is doubtful that this solution would lead to objective media since all media sings the song that fulfills their management’s agenda. However, citizens would know that the media sings the lyrics on the teleprompter, which would support the state’s political view. That is not necessarily a negative outcome.
Closet liberals and conservatives could still access opposing viewpoints online. This new concept hasn’t tackled the issue of differing political views within marriages or partnerships, but I doubt the divorce rate would worsen beyond its current state.
Companies controlled by one kind or the other would gravitate to states filled with people who sing their songs. Liberal companies would expect to be taxed higher because a bigger liberal government needs to be funded to provide them with the services they desire. Conservative companies, on the other hand, would likely experience higher profit margins if only because of the reduced government interference in commerce.
The federal government would also need to change, as it is inherently a one-size-fits-all system in a diverse nation. A solution might be for the federal government to only tax state governments to fund its military and significantly reduce federal services. Taxation would be primarily administered by individual states as our politically-minded founding fathers originally intended. Isn’t developing innovative solutions what our best and brightest senators and congresspeople should be pursuing?
Sanctuary cities would evolve into sanctuary states. Welfare services might be restricted to certain citizens in red states and everyone in blue states. Perhaps a minor complication would arise, requiring those traveling through red states to reach another sanctuary state. They could obtain a visa for traversing a red state. However, that rule would be mild compared to what we endure now.
Finally, consider this an evolution of democracy, not an aberration. Harmony would prevail throughout the country, except in areas adjacent to the borders between blue and red states. Perhaps those border areas would be prohibited from having drinking establishments or legalized pot-smoking establishments within a certain proximity to the border.
Christmas would feel more like a celebration in red states, while the generic winter holiday would embody a cool blue hue. Red states would be filled with gun-toting, bible-thumping citizens, whereas blue states would join hands and sing ‘We Are the World,’ smiling as they enjoyed the warmth and safety of nearby safe zones.
But the best thing would be that we finally found a way to tribalize the Great Collective to sing harmoniously with their political tribe.
