An independent's frustration

It seems today we have more choices for just about anything you can think of.

There are countless restaurant franchises, representing all types of foods. There are thousands upon thousands of stores, both physical and online, where you can buy just about anything. There are hundreds of styles of kitchen faucets. You can choose any number of model airplanes or vintage jewelry. Looking for something to read? Good luck picking among the millions of titles.

Given our wide selections everywhere else, why are we stuck with basically two political choices?

I have become increasingly frustrated with our two-party political system. Sure, we have other options on the fringes of the U.S. political spectrum, but Democrats and Republicans dominate our politics, and, therefore, our policy.

But two parties can't possibly encompass the nuances of personal beliefs, whether it be moral, economic or otherwise.

I've heard radio talk show hosts speak of independent voters as schizophrenic, incapable of having principles. I've heard arguments that all liberals are immoral. I read that Republicans are racist and uncaring. The political shaming is comparable to the rhetoric of the playground. If you don't believe as I do, you're a "loser."

Countless people take stands on issues based on their party's position. In many cases it seems blind trust is granted based on political color.

Here is what I mean:

Why is it that a person who believes that abortion is immoral and ought to be unlawful, can't also believe that the economic disparity between the super rich and the rest of us isn't hurting our country?

Why are pro-lifers politically bound to be anti-union?

Why must a "woman hater" who places a high value on a baby in the womb, as a matter of political affiliation, also believe that military intervention is needed to defeat ISIS?

If a person thinks consenting adults ought to have the right to marry whomever they choose, can he or she also believe that Obama's Iran deal was a mistake?

Can someone who supports stricter gun control also believe in supply-side economics?

Why is it that a person who believes that climate change is a real threat must also believe that free college for everyone is a good idea?

Should those who support Obama's deal in Iran be called "Libtards"? What if those "libtards" also believe in lowering tax rates? (As someone whose brother has a mental disability, I detest the word "libtard." The frequent use of the word on social media and message boards is staining the party's reputation.)

The point is that the issues facing our country today are numerous, complicated and, in many ways, unrelated to one another.

Yet each party takes a fairly distinct stance on each of the issues. Any time one party takes a side, the other party takes an opposing view. There seems to be absolutely nothing that our parties agree on, except perhaps that we should support veterans. Yet we don't even do that well.

There are differences within the individual parties, but they typically are minor differences, and some of those are playing out in the Republican primary. There are variations on pro-life stances, distinctions on immigration reform (the biggest difference among candidates), different ways to approach the deficit and tax reform. But who really is willing to depart from the party line on any of the issues? Unfortunately, there is one: the unlikable, abrasive and egocentric Donald Trump. The rest are all different shades of red.

We independents (who actually determine the presidency as party loyalists tend to cancel out each other) are left bitter by the rhetoric on both sides. We take issue with pundits who hope that our president fails. We tire of the name-calling. We have our own opinions on the different issues. Does that make us unprincipled schizophrenics?

I would guess that a majority of people in my social circle are political party loyalists. I have great friends and beloved family who attach themselves to a party. I have many other friends who are apolitical, and try to avoid the issues altogether.

As voters, we all have priorities and decisions to make.

What is our top political priority? For many, particularly those in the Bible Belt and many of my family members, abortion is the most important issue, and they vote accordingly. Once a priority is identified, then there is another choice to make:

Will you do whatever it takes politically to support your top issue? Does it trump all else? Will you buy in to the party's positions, whether you agree with them or not, to push ahead that agenda? Are you willing to throw objectivity out the window because you've pledged your allegiance to one issue?

As recently as 1980, there was no correlation between voters' views on abortion and political affiliation, according to a study conducted in 2002, and reported on in The Washington Post. Ronald Reagan, in the 1960s, signed some of the nation's most permissive abortion rights legislation as California's governor. Most conservatives today, including many in the pro-life camp, consider Reagan a transformative beacon of the GOP.

A decade after some of Reagan's decisions as governor, following the Roe vs. Wade decision, the moral issue of abortion became a political one, and Republicans sided with life over choice. As president, Reagan committed to the pro-life movement, an issue to which he later admitted he hadn't originally given much thought. Over time Republicans were able to capture a large segment of voters -- namely Evangelicals -- because pro-life people are very passionate about the issue. As they should be.

I personally belong in the pro life camp. I believe life begins in the womb. I believe life is precious and should be protected. Our society should protect the defenseless.

But my belief on abortion has nothing to do with my opinions on other large, important, unrelated issues.

So who is it that determines the party line? Is it a great leader? Is it a process of polling people? Is it powerful politicians hashing out ideas? Or is it partisan talking heads on your favorite cable or radio show, or even a late-night comedian?

Mostly, political contrarianism appears to rule the day; that and political data. Politics is a numbers game, and everyone is in attack mode, constantly, in an effort to stoke emotions and draw particular segments to their side.

It seems strange to me that in the year 2015, with the great number of issues that are important in today's world, that we're still stuck with this two-party system that, frankly, is failing.

When I'm in the market for a vehicle, I have many choices. I can make a list of what I want and match those wants and needs with the vehicle that is right for me.

When it comes to choosing a president, I will have a choice between a Hummer and a Smart Car.

Our political conversation between now and the primary election will center around which Hummer has the most rugged tires and which electric car can go the farthest on a single charge.

When November rolls around, the salesmen and saleswomen will tout the Hummer and Smart Car as the perfect vehicles for middle class families.

I'm all in for a cars.com approach to politics.

Or at least a few more dealerships from which to choose.