In small circles among friends, family, and coworkers, there are two topics of discussion that can completely dismantle relationships and joyful conversations: religion and politics. Religious discussion is typically done among those who share some inkling of the same theological concepts, though social media has expanded communication to diverse belief systems. Politics, on the other hand, is debated by members of differing parties and spectrums, usually leading to conflict and unnecessary labeling. However, the conflict arises not so much from the topic at hand, but rather towards the political alignment the debaters show.

In a recent poll conducted by Gallup.com, 38% of polled Americans claimed themselves conservative, compared to 34% moderate, and 24% liberal. Spread those statistics across different societal pockets in the United States, and discussions about the Constitution, gun control, abortion, taxation, education, and foreign policy is bound to happen, and bound to disengage. Debates about these issues are necessary in order to gain perspective on other viewpoints, but the trend nowadays is to attack not the content of the debater, but rather of their party.

Peruse through any social media comment section, especially those provided by news outlets such as Fox and CNN, and one may find claims that "Republicans are uneducated Southerners" or "Liberals are nothing but fascist hippies," and so on and so forth into more vulgar territories. It doesn't stop at the local level, as both Republican and Democratic Senators and House members keep the trend continuing by insinuating that issues are caused by the other side's "unwillingness to cooperate." In the 2016 GOP and Democratic debates, the common phrase uttered was, "We have to beat the (insert opposite party here)."

If our ability to debate on domestic and international affairs boils down to simply belittling the opposing party, what can be done? Perhaps a removal of the labels Republican and Democrat and their societal terms, conservative and liberal, respectively. If individuals viewed themselves not as an allegiance to a party, but rather as free-thinking adults who are allowed to fluctuate on their beliefs as necessary and carry over such fluidity in discussion, then civil and intelligent debates and discussions could be accomplished without having to resort to typecasting. If this idea carried over into the electoral process, then candidates could be evaluated by a much bigger variety of observers who can cast their vote based on their solution to topical problems instead of whether or not they are red or blue. Critics may say that this eliminates the community that political parties can create among like-minded people, but it stands to reason that the party system has not only reduced community, it has created proverbial barriers.

In his Farewell Address at the end of his second term, George Washington was noted as saying, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” It seems that President Washington was a man before his time.

Have a better solution for fixing the party problem? Comment below or on Facebook and Twitter, and happy debating!