Red or Blue? With zero background information pertaining to this three-lettered question, any hesitation upon answering it? Little over a month after a presidential election, very few are unsure of which side to lean. “America the Brave” tells herself, “the question is what are your morals? What do you as a powerful and thoughtful individual stand for? Are you willing to defend the rights of yourself and others?” Nevertheless, these are not the questions being asked. If they are, more often than not, the underlying true question lingers, Red or Blue?

It’s the 21st century, Apple products are inscribed upon every Christmas list in the country, toasty brick-lined fireplaces no longer unite families, Netflix does, and we judge our oh so beautiful life experiences based on the number of “likes” awarded by fellow Instagramers. It’s the 21st century, and apathy holds a firm grip on the populace. In such conditions, people turn to any appealing power out there willing to stand tall and confident among the masses of indifference. This is where it’s the most charismatic, not the wisest, of individuals who are granted their drug of choice, profound doses of attention. $461.6 million was the estimated amount spent just in advertisements by Obama and Romney combined. Today’s politician knows better than all, minds of the masses are warped with mere expenses. Slavery has been a dark memory in American history for 147 years, but it’s plain to see today and for the foreseeable future, people can still be bought.

It’s not the methods and morals of either political party ripping up the American moral fabric; it’s the hastily growing polarization of the two. “Obama will take away all my guns!” says Red. “Romney will take away all my tampons!” says Blue. To be neutral is to be a joke. Joichi Ito, a Japanese-American activist, once said, “It is not just the extremists who harbor bad thoughts or engage in bad acts, but they are usually the source of the polarization and try to keep education and communication of the main stream from moving forward.” With such divided politics, we separate ourselves from opposing party members, regardless if they’re friend or family. In fits of confusion and frustration, herds of “American Patriots” flock to the internet, not to intelligently illustrate their own independent thoughts and opinions in hopes that others will see clarity, but to boast and give strength to the basic principles and philosophies of whatever political banner they themselves fall under. One idea keeping the melting pot of America united is the idea of attacking the political stance of others (preferably over Facebook or text messages rather than face-to-face debate) with as closed a mind as we can conceive. Such a practice never amounts to answers, but heated heads and hateful hearts on each side of the political spectrum.

From the very beginning of the American experiment, every generation has accepted the grievances and qualities of our two-party system. Nonetheless, the two-party system never really is a true two-party system at all. In 2008, nominees from as many as ten political parties were listed on the ballots of a few states. In theory, more variety in political parties would end the polarization of Republicans and Democrats. With more candidates, eventually all parties will even out in popularity and opposite sides of the spectrum will become meaningless. But is this so? Have we not seen this before? With ten nominees to choose from in some states just four years ago, are we not more divided than ever? Do these smaller parties get nationally covered conventions like that of Democrats and Republicans? Those with great influence say “Vote for who you believe in!”, but after hearing such a message, the pressure is on. Critical thinking is put in place. With this, the underlying message is revealed as “Don’t throw your vote away!” In time, maybe the main parties will change, and maybe the ultimate question will be Magenta or Orange. Always however, it will be one or the other. Green Party, Constitution Party, and all the rest will go the way of Whigs and Federalists generations ago. The “variety” given by the smaller insignificant parties only gives more power to the two with prominence, and they only enhance the length of the spectrum, the political polarization.


So, Red or Blue? Don’t jot down any personal morals, stop boasting a popular stance on a given social issue, and discontinue the unintelligent yet spirited and boisterous rant finely memorized from a favored television program. Never mind the established fact that with such polarized ideals, we simultaneously become as crooked as the politicians themselves. An answer to this question will convey all there is to know. Red or Blue?