People often use the term left and right handed for democrats and republicans. I think this is a perfect metaphor because often opinions become so wrapped around one political side they become one handed. What is wrong about being one handed, well it means your handy caped. You would not want a one handed man building your house (hopefully) so why would you want a one handed man build your country?
Republicans and democrats remind me of two men that are tied together back to back since birth, one facing the east and the other facing the west. They remain facing the same direction their entire lives never knowing what’s behind them. The man facing the east is called Republican and the man facing the west is called Democrat. Every day they argue between each other about what is more beautiful the sun rise or the sun set, the east or the west, when the sun is above them they argue about who can see the furthest and who has the best view.
Republican watches the sun rise and says “I see the sun rise to its highest point while giving power and light to the land”.
Democrat watches the sun set and he says “it is becoming dim but the sun brightens the land beyond us giving the other lands light like it has for us”.
Republican says, “the sun rise is more important because it gives us sight and the plants around us life”.
Democrat says, “No, the sun set is more important because it spreads an equality of light through out the world and not just ours”.
The next morning when the sun begins to raise Republican says “if the sun does not rise then the sun can not set”. Democrat was stunned by this comment and did not reply because he did not know what to say. Republican felt much pride in his argument but did not dare to gloat fearing that Democrat would find something else to say.
When the sun staggered above their heads during mid-day the heat grew immense. Democrat was soaking in sweat and his mouth grew dry as he became more dehydrated. Democrat looked around the west observing all of the plants and animals flourishing from the sun then said, “if the sun should never set and should stay above our heads the heat will dry up the river beds, turn the green grass yellow, and we will all die from thirst and hunger as our bodies bake underneath the hot sun”. Republican was surprised by Democrat and could not think of a reply.
They remained silent the rest of the day, and it was not until dark when the silence was broken by Republican, “the air is cold and every minute it becomes colder. The sky is dark and every minute it becomes darker. What if the sun should never raise again, the plants around us would die without the sun and we would surely freeze to death while never being able to enjoy the last bit of our surroundings”. Shocked once more, Democrat had no reply, he did not expect Republican to raise such a point.
Republican and Democrat were never able to see what each other saw. Therefore they could not understand the over’s point of view. They could only see the beauty of the sun rise or set never the beauty of the whole day from beginning to end. If they would untie themselves then they would understand each other. They were never able to know the importance of what they could not see. Together they were right and left handed but they were never able to work together to find a conclusion. If we would try to understand each other and meat each other half way then we will no longer be one handed. We will be stronger and more proficient.
Stay tuned for my next political segment The Sin in Voting.

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 6, 2008 at 5:57 am
dan simmons
i was just talking with a friend tonight about this. it’s awful that it’s like so democrat versus republican. weren’t they supposed to work together?
im interested to see what you’re coming up.
May 8, 2008 at 6:14 am
dan simmons
check this out, a friend of mine wrote it, thought it was good.
political parties analogy……
The two doctors bickered.
“You don’t use this method like I do.”
“At least I don’t have as many deaths on the table as you.”
The patient’s heartbeat was slowly fading.
There was time.
There was opportunity.
“We should really drug him. This will be painful.”
“Are you serious? We aren’t going to drug him.”
“Fine. You’ll see,” said the first doctor in a way that made all the nurses apprehensive. It sounded as if he was planning to sabotage the entire operation. Or, in the least, was hoping for the operation’s failure.
More bickering ensued, and a few minutes quickly lapsed.
“Can’t you two just work together?” one of the nurses emphatically suggested.
“Stay out of this,” the doctors replied simultaneously, their clean hands both pointing frozen index fingers.
The patient was dead.
May 15, 2008 at 8:59 am
undergroundnetwork
Hi Andrew,
You are right, of course we can agree on something!
I think you will agree when I saw that being much more pragmatic when considering political issues is much more helpful than staunch political allegiance. Polarisation of politics ensures that conflict is rarely resolved an altogether leads to inefficient governance.
Although I am clearly on the left of the political spectrum, I resist the title. My lecturer came up to me on the first day of the semester and asked me about what my political views. I knew him to be something a socialist, with unionist ties in his past. I assume he expected me to say something along those lines, as we had often agreed on issues in class. However I told him what things were important to me, what I believed to be ideal society, and that
As it turns out the person that I often agree with most in the class is easily the most right wing, only because I am pragmatic and apply my ethics on a case by case basis, so I am less likely to be boxed in to a particular view point. I believe this to be a much more helpful way of going about things.
I vote Green Party (New Zealand) but I do not agree with their every policy. Does any one agree with EVERYTHING that their party votes for? This is the reason why I find Party allegiance ridiculous. For this reason I consider anyone who staunch follows a party an idiot. Be it “Democrats” or “Republicans”, or Labour or National supporters, one must be independent enough to know when their own party is deserving of criticism.
May 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm
andrewbreece
I am not suprised that you would take a case by case basis, that I think is the best way to think politicaly. I like your last response “Be it “Democrats” or “Republicans”, or Labour or National supporters, one must be independent enough to know when their own party is deserving of criticism.” and I will probaly end up quateing it in future posting or writings unless you object.