This is an opinion on opinions–they just don’t work in America. It’s one side or the other, and those who dare to compromise just can’t seem to gain traction. Somehow, some way, the very same nation that prides itself on free speech and expression restricts people in what they are allowed to believe. 

An explanation for the toxicity of such deep polarization of America is far too complex to explain in brief terms, and quite honestly, there still isn’t a definitive answer. However, the ironic consequence of such a division is a country that legally allows for free speech and press but culturally shuns those who do not conform to one of the two major parties.

There are many reasons for why the American system practically prohibits the possibility of a third party candidate ever winning, but as Aliza Astrow, a political analyst for Third Way, puts it, those who are “neutral,” typically still lean one way or another. 

People who claim to be part of alternative right-leaning parties will still probably end up voting for Republican candidates out of a lack of confidence in the power of their party. The same applies to America’s political left. Those who do truly vote for an alternative party are simply seen as “spoilers” who let the other side win. But while that notion does hold some practical truth, it is also disappointing to see from an idealist perspective.

Many, such as writer Raoul Martinez for Novara Media, view third parties, moderate centrists in particular, in the same way they functioned historically–an enabler that allowed for extreme oppression and(or) abhorrent atrocities. Others, like author Rebecca Solnit, claim that third parties support a dangerous “status-quo bias,” which can supposedly prevent any change from occurring regarding many heated political issues. 

While these concerns are valid, they produce the problematic side-effect of creating a stereotype against centrists and other compromise-driven third parties; the image of a snobby, uninformed elite class who are too comfortable in their own luxury to care about the status quo. But rarely does anyone stop to view these people through a different perspective.

The reality is that the current bipartisan system actually prevents people from expressing their opinions freely. For example, a third party candidate could be in opposition to gun control but also against the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. On paper, these two stances should not be mutually exclusive; this would be a legitimate set of political opinions. 

Unfortunately, the bipartisan system isolates these two stances to one side or the other, and a person who could hold these two seemingly conflicting opinions would be seen as outrageous in today’s political climate. 

The lack of freedom to express one’s actual political opinions without the pressures to conform is what truly frustrates many third-parties. Third parties consist merely of citizens with opinions that can stem from a broad spectrum of sources, so why are they shunned from expressing their authentic opinions? Why are they seen as lesser in America’s political field? Again, it’s simply the overwhelming power of the two leading parties and the impossibility of a third party ever gaining any real traction. 

So what is the solution? How can America be transformed into the shining beacon on a hill that it is supposed to be? How can we break the pressures of conforming to one of two titanic political parties so that everyone can truly have a voice–a voice that is authentic, unfiltered, and representative of one’s beliefs?

We can’t. American democracy as a whole has failed.

It is truly ironic how hypocritical the American ideal is. A nation that prides itself on the freedom to openly express oneself also immediately puts to shame anyone who either seeks compromise or follows a novel political mindset, regardless of the content of their beliefs. In a way, the “political freedom” in America has really been reduced to submitting wholly to one party or another, with alternatives being completely impractical and/or ineffective.

But then one may ask, “who cares about a naïve group of centrists?” Or “why should we respect the people who only take away our votes?” The answer is pretty simple–and the fact that this needs to be clarified is frustrating in itself–respecting others’ opinions is morally correct, and being hypocritical naturally diminishes credibility. 

Opinions are supposed to be just that–opinions. Almost all of the time, they are not concrete facts, but instead a reflection of one’s logic, values, morals, and sometimes emotions. Just because an opinion is uncommon–or even obscure–does not objectively mean that it is “wrong,” and people have the right to express what they believe.

Of course, there are boundaries that should not be crossed, but the fact of the matter is that many of what third party Americans, like Alice M. Rivlin in 2018, say are not only safely within said boundaries, but also hold a decent amount of truth. Compromise is lacking, the nation is divided, the system is in need of some adjustments, and “neither party can hope to start a productive negotiation by marching into the room shouting.”

But unfortunately, the paranoia that stems from the fear of letting the opposing side win leads to hardliner Republicans and Democrats refusing to even acknowledge the merits of third parties. Eventually, members of the two juggernaut parties only become hypocritical.

Republicans and Democrats who condemn third parties for “hypocrisy”–complaining about wanting change while not actually pushing for change themselves–are really being hypocritical themselves. They complain about the inaction of third parties when in fact, it is the overwhelming power of their two parties that prevents third party action from being impactful in the first place.

So in short, yes, anyone can have an opinion… but only if that opinion is able to align itself wholly with one of the two major parties. Look at reality, America; the shining beacon that is freedom of expression has faded. Maybe, just maybe, a tiny bit of respect–or toleration, at the very least–for less widespread opinions couldn’t hurt, right?