The Politics of the Non-Binary Voter: A Case for the They/Them Party
What Happens When Your Political Beliefs Don't Fit the Status Quo?
Photo by Katie Rainbow 🏳️🌈 on Unsplash
We live in a society that is ever more persistent in its demand for labels and categorizations. I find myself resistant to being confined within restrictive definitions that others often try to impose upon me—whether that's as a BIPOC, a jazz musician, a liberal, a conservative, or a Broadway drummer. I might embody some, all, or none of these identities. As for my political inclinations, my dilemma extends beyond choosing a candidate to support; it now encompasses the challenge of defining my own political identity.
The simplicity of identifying as a "Democrat" or "Republican" seems like a relic of the past. Maybe it’s time to create a new category - enter the era of the Non-Binary Voter.
Let's talk pronouns. Once upon a time, 'he' and 'she' had a duopoly over the English language, much like the Democrats and Republicans have over American politics. But language, like society, evolves, and 'they/them' have entered the lexicon to supposedly describe individuals who don't neatly fit into the traditional two categories of gender identity. So, what happens when this mindset meets the ballot box? We find ourselves in need of the They/Them Party — the political home for those who feel that "Democrat" or "Republican" are labels that might as well come with a corset, suffocatingly tight and hopelessly outdated. This is the party for those who are tired of being told to pick a side on the political seesaw when they'd rather be on the merry-go-round.
Government forms, with their checkboxes and drop-down menus, are the bureaucrats' way of making life simpler for them, not for us. Single or divorced? Choose one, they say. But life is not a Facebook relationship status; it's complicated. Why does it matter whether one checks ‘previously married’ or ‘single’? In my case, I’m both divorced AND single at the moment. I’m also single, divorced and head of household in real life, but for tax purposes I can’t be non-binary? And I don’t even want to get into a discussion about how bizarre ‘income’ tax is right now.
Why should it matter if we can't pledge undying allegiance to a single political party? Like those split-ticket voters, some of us are split-ideology voters. People can simultaneously hold liberal views on a social safety net while desiring conservative fiscal policies. In the era where ‘non-binary’ is recognized on government documents for our personal identities, why not in our political identities? A Non-Binary Voter might want to refuse to check the 'D' or 'R' box just because there's no 'Both,' 'Neither,' or 'It's Complicated' option.
The next time someone asks you what your political affiliation is, throw them a curveball. Say you're a proud member of the They/Them Party. Watch as they scramble to add that to their mental lexicon, right next to the myriad of new terms that the 21st century has birthed.
Until the forms change and the parties widen their tents, many of us will just be here, non-binary in our politics, waiting for the day when we can tick 'all of the above' and indeed mean it. Right now, it’s NONE of the above for me.
Clayton Craddock is a devoted father of two, an accomplished musician, and a thought-provoker dedicated to Socratic questioning, challenging the status quo, and encouraging a deeper contemplation on a range of issues. Subscribe to Think Things Through HERE, and for inquiries and to connect, email him here: Clayton@claytoncraddock.com.
While I know full well how politically incorrect it is to say it, here goes:
If this so-called 'democracy' is the best superstition humanity can come up with to keep ourselves convinced that the behavior of institutions is somehow reflective of anyone's wishes other than those who benefit directly from belonging to institutions, I have to call it as much of a total failure as any other ritualized form of superstitious observances.
Sadly enough, I can name zero examples throughout my lifetime of anyone elected to any office at any level who has done anything other than enrich themselves and advance their own esoteric agendas with the powers vested in them by that office. Nor do I have any substantive reason to believe that voting for anyone to serve in any office at any level from here onward will have the slightest influence on causing future functionaries to exhibit any more good faith or ethos of service toward those they are 'sworn' to serve than they ever had in the past.
All my experience and all my learning tells me that 'democracy' is an absolute fraud, that it serves only to preserve and protect a permanent elitist caste who prefer not to earn their daily bread by honest means, and instead to extort it from those who do, while delivering as few measurable results in anyone's favor but their own as they can manage.
But like all superstitious observances, while it utterly escapes me why anyone requires them at all, or what possible good result anyone expects to extract from them, I do try my best not to judge individuals for insisting on continuing them for whatever reason. If voting for useless parasites who have nothing but contempt for those who place them in power makes folks feel better, who am I to stand in their way?
All I see in any other human being, regardless of their origins, status, achievements or position, is someone who can either behave as my neighbor, or as a potential enemy by not choosing to be a neighbor before all else. No vote I could ever cast would ever compel anyone to choose the former over the latter.