Members of the voting public tend to endorse the bipartisan voting system because of the assumption that having the extreme stances of each issue represented guarantees that the moderate opinions will be given due attention. This is false.

In a bipartisan political system where each politician and party is forced to declare which “side of the aisle” they will stand on, representatives are forced to align their views with the vision of a party. This homogenizes political perspectives, reducing diversity in governance to the point at which people enter voting booths not expecting to see a variety of visions for the future but a vague mess of opinions broadly categorized as red or blue.

Lumping together the opinions of individual politicians and larger parties endangers democracy and detracts from the legitimacy of any candidates’ political appeal.

This is the case because – as individuals in this bipartisan system – we assume the political stances of candidates as soon as we know their party affiliation. For example, we assume that Democrats are pro-choice and that Republicans support military intervention abroad, that Democrats are pro-marijuana legalization and that Republicans are supportive of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Attributing these stances to politicians who announce their candidacies happens near automatically and often subconsciously. And yet in doing so, we eliminate individual candidates ability to define themselves as unique and run a novel campaign as our stereotypes of each party are so deeply entrenched in society that we struggle to look beyond them.

These stereotypes are not just carried by the typical voting public, such as you or me, but they are propagated by the media and by other politicians.

Consider the way that President Donald Trump discusses Democrats on Twitter – he lumps all members of the party together, acting as though they have a single unified vision for the future, and share the same emotions and reactions. Consequently he strips members of the party of their individuality and removes any room for intra-party discussion or disagreement.

But it’s not just Trump. Liberal candidates and news-outlets are guilty of the same actions. Consider how often news articles portray the two parties as butting heads during partisan debates, negating the reality of individuals seeking to reach consensus about issues that affect us all – for example, a recent article published by popular political outlet The Hill which portrayed Republicans and Democrats as being on the verge of fist fighting about climate change.

The deep rooted assumptions about the two dominant American political parties has created a society of two halves, through which we wander and systematically categorize what we see and hear as being aligned with The Left or The Right.

In fact, most people could pretty confidently assert what they assume to be the classic conservative voter – white, from a rural area, pro-gun, pro-choice, probably Christian and wants to work in corporate to make money. Compared to the cookie-cutter liberal – millennial, went to a liberal arts college, slept through church, pro-legalization, drinks craft beer, likely has tattoos, reads CNN and calls themselves “woke.”

The accuracy, or inaccuracy, of these stereotypes is irrelevant because we use them regardless.

If you doubt what I’m saying, just consider companies that market themselves to youthful-liberals and proudly advertise their use of recycled materials, or conservative businesses that boast about their commitment to keeping jobs local. Or, even more partisan, compare the ads shown during Fox News’ afternoon special with those screened during CNN’s evening show.

Ascribing these stereotypes to mundane objects or apolitical lifestyle choices – such as Gilette did by endorsing the Democrat-led #MeToo movement and aligning its razor blades with what are considered to be liberal ideals – opens the flood the gates for our society to become nothing but a political minefield in which our day-to-day decisions cause us to be boxed in by political generalities.

The issue of politicizing the mundane along party-lines has become increasingly dominant in our society and it seems that the 2020 presidential campaigns will be no different.

Democratic candidate Cory Booker has already proudly announced that he follows a vegan diet and is using that to garner support for his candidacy, receiving an unofficial endorsement from renowned advocacy group the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

So – apologies if it’s inconvenient but – vegans and vegetarians, you’re Democrats now and it’s not your choice anymore.

But don’t worry, Republicans are making waves too as public figures such as singer Joy Villa use their platforms to advocate the agenda pushed by President Trump. In a bold move, Villa even attended the 2019 Grammys award ceremony dressed as a border wall and carrying a clutch which read “Make America Great Again.”

So, liberals, you better think twice next time you want to relax to some country-rock or Motown – that’s a Republican thing now.

Politicizing everyday choices and allowing them to become indicators for party affiliations is wrong. It defeats the purpose of government as a structure to protect the integrity of society and instead creates rifts between us.

We walk around thinking that our politics is why we shop at certain stores and buy certain clothes – Democrats shop at Whole Foods but get to wear Nike for Colin Kaepernick, Republicans shop at Walmart but find support in companies including Macy’s and Saks Off Fifth. And yet, this systematic categorization of the people we see around us is denigrating our society.

When it is impossible for us to make a purchase, eat a meal, get a job or read the news without making a political statement, it becomes near impossible for us to distance ourselves from politics and our votes become symptoms of our habits, rather than informed and purposeful choices.

And, quite honestly, when voting is just another item on the to-do list, just another action cementing one’s affiliation with a political party then it has lost its function as a means to shape society and we may as well just skip the rigamarole of elections and organize in two groups around NRA and “coexist” bumper stickers, respectively.

Our nation’s legislative home, is the necessary fixture for discourse concerning the most pressing issues that citizens face. To do this, Democrats, Republicans and Independents must all sit side-by-side and draft legislation. In other words, heart and soul of Congress is imbued with the capacity for bipartisanship and expected to make effective use of it.

Bipartisanship in a representative system comes as a result of local government officials aligning local concerns with that of the other localities represented to make up what is best for the whole. The question then becomes how can our representatives and senators serve their own partisan interests while also making bipartisan progress?

A Dartmouth study of 304,763 speeches made on the floor of the House of Representatives between 1994-2012 indicate that legislators do not tend to focus bipartisan policy making on issues that garner meaningful support from both parties.

“Although the term ‘bipartisan’ has strong positive associations, it lacks a clear definition. Representatives exploit this definitional ambiguity to present their work as bipartisan, knowing that a majority of constituents view the concept positively and associate it with a normatively good aspect of democratic governance,” the study said.

Basically, everyone wants to be seen as working both sides of the aisle and not clogging DC’s pipes, and bipartisanship is effective only when representatives craft legislation that matters to and satisfies both sides. The ability to see past the partisan implications of any policy indicates the success of true bipartisanship.

However, people whose voices can significantly affect the state of bipartisanship are those who elect representatives. Analysis of House speeches failed to prove that anything other than voters perceptions affirmed bipartisanship rather than reality.

“Broad coalitions of representatives and ideologically moderate legislation are both factual indications of bipartisanship. However, voters require neither when evaluating claims of bipartisan action. Constituents are responsive to assertions that legislation is bipartisan even when the legislation is overtly partisan in purpose. Thus, members of Congress can cultivate impressions of moderate policy-making with minimal effort and without defining or justifying what bipartisanship actually means,” reported the Dartmouth study.

When government is heavily reliant on posturing in regards to what people and other governments think, what is generally accepted as true is taken as such.

A particular sphere where bipartisanship is especially useful is the sphere of foreign policy. The American image towards other countries is benefitted when it is one of unity, success and effectiveness.

Henry W. Berger, history professor at Washington University, recognizes bipartisanship as a way of simplifying American diplomacy and coordinating strategy towards common goals.

“Bipartisanship as an active, sustained strategy of foreign policy appeared a few years after World War II, during the crises of American power abroad in the two succeeding decades. It was a calculated attempt to minimize or to avoid altogether the schisms of debate over the tactics of foreign policy which could threaten the conduct and conceivably, though perhaps not intentionally, the substance of American diplomacy,” Berger said.

Foreign policy is inevitably difficult so it is reasonable to assume lawmakers want to find the easiest possible route to dealing with foreign policy.

“Policy-makers and politicians appealed to what former Secretary of State Dean Acheson called the ‘nonpartisan oil of government’ as a means of reducing the difficulties in the way of maintaining continuity and predictability of action by the United States overseas,” reported Berger.

Achieving this perception of bipartisanship is a result of the persuasive efforts of congresspeople. Rhetorical manipulation on their behalf can shape constituents’ perceptions.

Jonathan Morris and Marie Witting, professors at Purdue University, conducted research on the partisan attitudes in Congress. They found that the psychology of voters perception of the government made it easy for them to give them exactly what they want.

“If viewers witness a Congress that is in direct conflict with the image perpetuated in the media, we expect to see a different reaction. As Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995) concluded, the American public wants a Congress that is basically the opposite of what they perceive it to be at the present-bipartisan rather than partisan, swift and efficient rather than slow and deliberative. Witnessing Representatives who voice rhetoric of bipartisan cooperation, institutional efficiency, and a desire to work together can undo some of the damage that past media coverage of Congress has done,” Morris and Witting’s study said.

The secret to bipartisanship hasn’t been one of bipartisan cooperation necessarily, as much as it has just been the propagation of rhetoric aimed at satisfying voters. Confidence in the democratic system is sustained by the sort of cooperation that bipartisanship implies and, so far, it has been successful at achieving that confidence.