Updated: Mar 4
Death Of Individual Thought
An ideologically defined group is destined to turn into a cult. See how it happens. It attracts people with similar ideological inclinations, who join and contribute to the group's ideologies. Soon, the group becomes more potent and convincing in its ideals, which attracts even more people with similar inclinations. This eventually culminates into an ideologically isolated world in which members believe the exact same myths and gas one another up, completely unaware that they are living in a false reality. Their normalcy starts to look insanity to the outside world, but they believe the converse. Members take on the group's identity and personality. They become nodes of the group rather than free and independent elements. They no longer think like free individuals. You can see this phenomenon in all religions, political parties, philosophical schools, and quasi-political activist groups (SJW types).
Let me add that groups that are not ideologically defined don't suffer this fate. Feel free to join Toastmasters, Ping-Pong Society, and Basketball Unions. These groups attract people who like similar vocations and sports regardless of what they believe in and what ideals they hold. In fact, these groups can produce camaraderie among all political, religious, and social factions.
Why you shouldn't vote for members of political parties
Republicans think that voting red can make the US great again. Nope. The Republican Party is also a political party. Parties are ideologically defined groups that have their own goals and agenda. Eventually, they turn into cults. Members are loyal first to their party only then to their nation (if at all). If a politician was more loyal to his countrymen than to his party, he would be neither a party member nor a congressman/parliamentarian since independents are far less likely to win elections. Name an independent US president or an independent Indian prime minister. Where there is no party, there is no booze.
We see this in every ideologically isolated group. Members first think about themselves and their ingroups before they think of outgroups. Religious people first help people who follow the same religion. To outgroups, they offer neglect and dispassion. Similarly, a politician would first want to enrich his party and donors. People who elected him are an outgroup here. This is called conflict of interest. The only individual whose self-interest matches that of society is an ideologically unaffiliated man who doesn't bow down to any religious, political, and social mythmaking, one who doesn't worship idols.
Many understand that political cartelization is a huge problem; they still are blind enough to vote for political parties because they don't want to let the other side win (voting for Biden/Trump to block Trump/Biden). But the other side is probably just another face of the same side. The illusion of choice keeps independents locked out and assures the two faces a lifetime of political gains. They simply take turns screwing the public while people lose their shit over election outcomes. This is how we get career politicians. And people keep falling for the trick.
Some of my friends in the US think that the Libertarian Party is the solution. They are great today but won't always be. We already saw the problem with ideological groups. No ideological group can avoid that fate. Therefore, if people want to have a functional democracy, where elected representatives represent voters, not their party ideals, cronies, and donors, they would have to commit to voting for independents.
Countries like the US would continue to be two-party states until people start voting for independents. This probably won't happen, because 9/10 people don't understand group behavior. They are clueless about the inherent problem in having and voting for political parties, whose goals are likely inconsistent with those of the people.