i'm not there anymore: on growth and judgment
the house you're trying to rob is empty, but i've found a new home
tl;dr: political evolution isn't betrayalβit's growth. i moved from republican to democrat in 2016, but I'm not stopping there. our two-party system is a straitjacket on american political thought. my journey proves that it's okay to outgrow your political past and seek a more nuanced ideological home, even if it doesn't fit neatly into existing parties. judge me if you must, but i'll keep evolving.
hola mis amores,
have you ever driven past an old apartment, wondering about the life you left behind?the arguments that echoed off those walls, the dreams you whispered into that pillow, the version of yourself that woke up each morning in that creaky bed?
i haveβ¦ and let me tell you, it's a strange feeling. itβs like looking at a faded polaroid of yourself with a hairstyle you'd rather forget. or in my case, a political ideology i've outgrown.
i scribbled these words in my journal late one night, the ink barely dry on my democratic voter registration card. the irony wasn't lost on me β a former republican, now embracing a political identity i once opposed.
but here's the thing about change: it's not a light switch. it's more like a sunrise, gradual and sometimes imperceptible until suddenly, you're bathed in a new light.
for years, i wore the republican label like an ill-fitting suit. i smoothed out the wrinkles, ignored the pinch in the shoulders, convinced myself it was tailored just for me. but with each passing year, each new experience, each conversation with someone whose life looked nothing like mine, that suit transformed into an ideological prison.
picture, if you will, the house of my former political self. in the living room, a portrait of reagan (may he burn in hell for all eternity) hangs askew, gathering dust. the kitchen, once stocked with half-baked trickle-down economic theories, now stands empty. and in the study, bookshelves once lined with ayn rand novels have been cleared to make room for james baldwin, bell hooks, franz fanon, and audre lorde.
now, i understand the instinct to judge. hell, i judge my past self often. that guy who argued passionately for trickle down economics (which btw - is proven not to work), convinced it would lead to job creation and economic prosperity?
i want to grab him by the shoulders and yell, "despierta, pendejo!"
but then i remember β that version of me was doing the best he could with the information he had. that version of me was trying so hard to fit into america, into blood red western michigan. i try to find a lot of compassion for that eager kid that just wanted to fit in and make an impact.
a pew research center study tracking partisan identities between september 2018 and july 2020 found that about 9% of voters who affiliated with or leaned toward one party in 2018 had switched to the other party by 2020.
i'm part of that statistic, but numbers can't capture the seismic shift in worldview that accompanies such a change. it's not just checking a different box on a form; it's renovating your entire belief system.
i remember the exact moment the foundation of my old political home began to crumble. it was 2015, and i was at a campaign event. a woman approached me, tears in her eyes, clutching medical bills she couldn't pay. "how does your party's healthcare plan help me?" she asked. i opened my mouth to recite the usual talking points about free markets and personal responsibility, but the words died in my throat. in that moment, i realized i was trying to wallpaper over a gaping hole in my political philosophy with empty rhetoric.
growth isn't about disowning your past. it's about acknowledging it, learning from it, and then packing up your boxes and moving to a place that fits the person you've become. it's about recognizing that the american dream my parents chased when they left puerto rico isn't accessible through the policies i once championed.
but here's the kicker and i know this might ruffle some feathers β i don't feel perfectly at home with the democrats either. truth is, i deeply dislike that the american political system is a clusterfuck, forcing us to choose between two flavors of neoliberal ice cream when what we really need is a whole damn political buffet.
in so many other nations, people enjoy true multiparty democracies where a spectrum of views is represented. meanwhile, here we are, stuck in a political tug-of-war where many feel unrepresented.
if i were to put a label on my current political stance β and oh boy, do i hate labels β it would be something like a mix of market socialism with a heavy dash of zapatismo. yeah, i know, it sounds like the political equivalent of a smoothie made with kale, avocado, and a sprinkle of revolutionary pepper. but hey, at least it's nutrient-dense and fights against systemic oppression, right? (iβll have to write more about my own political beliefs later.)
so yeah, go ahead and judge that old version of me. knock yourself out. criticize his views, question his choices, roll your eyes at his naivetΓ©.
but know this: you're swinging at shadows. that edgard doesn't live there anymore.
and the current edgard? theyβre camping out in the political wilderness, trying to build a new home that truly fits. he's still figuring things out. still growing, still learning, still fucking up sometimes. but theyβre also braver, kinder, and a whole lot more comfortable in their own skin (and their political affiliation).
to those who might say, "you've betrayed your principles," i say this: principles should be a compass, not an anchor. if new information, experiences, and empathy lead you in a different direction, isn't it more of a betrayal to ignore that evolution?
so here's my challenge to you, dear reader: the next time you're tempted to judge someone for their past, pause. ask yourself: am i seeing who they were, or who they are? am i fixating on an empty house, or am i open to meeting the person standing right in front of me?
because let me tell you, the view from this new place? it's pretty fucking spectacular. and there's plenty of room for all of us here.
in the coming weeks, i'll be sharing more about my journey from republican to democrat, and beyond into the realms of political ideologies that don't fit neatly into any box. it's messy, it's complicated, and it's probably going to piss off people on all sides of the political spectrum. but it's real, it's mine, and i'm done apologizing for the road that led me here.
as we puerto ricans say, "lo que pasΓ³, pasΓ³" (what's past is past). but that doesn't mean we can't learn from it, grow from it, and use it to build a better future.
stay tuned, mis amores. π
edgardβπ½π
p.s. if you're in the middle of your own political identity crisis, know that you're not alone. change is scary as fuck, but it's also where the magic happens. trust the journey, even if it takes you off the beaten path.
p.p.s. to everyone reading this, regardless of your political stripe: i see you, i respect you, and i'm not here to change your mind. i'm just inviting you to consider that maybe, just maybe, our political landscape could use a little more color than just red and blue.
This was so good!! Thank you for sharing this. I think a lot of people need to hear this.
"if i were to put a label on my current political stance β and oh boy, do i hate labels β it would be something like a mix of market socialism with a heavy dash of zapatismo"
literally SAME!! LOL
I have always considered political parties a huge part of the problem and having little to do with solutions. I always register as NPP (No Party Preference). So why do we have parties today?
Political parties exist for basically 2 reasons; as a force multiplier to agree a common point of view on policy issues and bring along enough votes to enact those policies, and to raise money for the candidates who will vote for the party policy line.So this is all good, right?
Not really. As this actually works the second goal controls the first. Those with the money get an outsized vote on what the party policies are. So rather than reflecting the will of the people, they reflect the will of the people with enough money to force their point of view. In practice, therefore, a two party system often leads to only 2 viable candidates in an election, bad and worse leaving people to either walk away or hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil.
I tend to think some variant of ranked choice voting combined with strong restrictions on the funding of parties and candidates may help lead us in a better direction. In a ranked choice election, you vote for up to 5 candidates in order of preference. If no one gets over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed using their voters next choice and so on until someone gets a plurality. This gives people a chance to vote for candidates they like, without giving up on those they think might prevent a bad candidate from winning. It changes the way candidates campaign, as you have to appeal to a broader segment of voters than just your party.
Look at the last election. Trump got 49.8%, Harris 47.3%. NEITHER had over 50%, so it would have gone to the next round, which may have moved the green party 3% to Kamala and changed the result (just theoretical). Or everyone could have made their second choice as an independent candidate, leading to a sweep that neither party won. This could completely change the nature of politics and combined with limits on spending could open the field to much better candidates.
So back to your point Eddie, the question is less about whether we identify as left or right, but the need to change the rules so we can identify as the complex, multi issues beings we really are and vote for candidates that may be ignored by the party but reflect our cvalues.