-- Anonymous Submission

More than ever, major party candidates are not allowed to speak their minds; instead, they are forced to follow their political faction. If a politician chooses to do what they believe is right instead of what their party deems "politically best," they risk being primaried. This forced adherence to party doctrine is unproductive and dangerous for this country, leading to further radicalization. As the Young Forwardists, we believe in the freedom of candidates. Our representatives should not be forced to stay quiet on an issue because it goes against party lines. 

In 2007, the United States fell into a financial crisis, some large trading firms committed illegal and fraudulent trading practices, endangering the American economy. Many of these practices were permitted because the organizations that were supposed to prevent crimes in the financial sector had been stripped of any power. Millions of lives were turned upside down in what became one of the most documented collapses in history. 

To combat the issues that caused the recession, two free-thinking congressmen Senators Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. The Act created government organizations such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to prevent the predatory lending that caused the crash while establishing the Volcker Rule, which placed restrictions on how banks could invest helping to prevent future financial crises. 

However, it comes as no surprise that those within the established political system did not want to see change. Many viewed the GOP as a major obstacle preventing the legislation from passing, with those on the right opposing the bill. However, deeper investigations show that the story was not so simple. In his book Act of Congress: How America's Essential Institution Works, and How It Doesn't, Bob Kaiser described a scene where Senator Dodd calls Alabama Senator Richard Shelby to strike a deal to approve the Dodd-Frank Act. Yet before the agreement is made, Democratic Senators Harry Reid (D-NV.), Bob Menendez (D-NJ.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY.) and Dick Durbin (D-IL.) called Dodd in an attempt to stop negotiations. To use the bill as a campaign platform instead of creating tangible legislation, Democrats attempted to discourage bipartisanship and use the issue as a political tool. Kaiser later says, "There were always those elements in the [Democratic] caucus… who thought fighting would be better than getting a bill."

Although the Dodd-Frank Act was later passed, the effort from both parties to stop meaningful legislation describes our current political landscape. Both political parties have and will continue to act out of self-interest, not that of their constituents. Still, it is reasonable to be critical of us drawing such wide-spanning conclusions from one case. But what if it was part of a pattern?  

So why is a case from 14 years ago important, anyway? 

Let's look at what happened to Christopher Dodd after the Act was passed. Dodd's Senate tenure ended only a year after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act with his retirement. While this retirement may seem perfectly natural after 36 years of service, it could indicate what happens to politicians after attempting to build consensus and work across the aisle.

Take Nebraska's Former Democratic governor, Ben Nelson (D-NE.), who gave a critical vote that allowed Obamacare to pass. Only a year later, he made the decision not to seek reelection. Despite his denunciation of voters on the 'radical' left and right, Nelson's embattled tenure is a prime example of a problem solver who was driven out of power after being crucial to the passing of a bill. 

In 2017, Bob Corker (R-TN.) flipped on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which drew the fire of liberal activists nationwide. Regardless of the Act's worth, Corker chose to reverse course and vote with his conscience irrespective of outside political pressure. This move was unpopular with many, with Corker’s Senate tenure ending about a year later. 

What may at first seem like three unrelated cases is anything but. Many major pieces of legislation passed in the last 30 years have resulted in the retirement of a key figure who was crucial to the bill's passage. Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT.), Representative Everett Dirksen (R-IL.), Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA); all are other prime examples of this case.

Each of the candidates listed above paid a political price for doing what should be expected of our Congress: passing legislation. We need a political system that rewards leaders for speaking their minds, not destroying their careers. Instead, Americans are victims of a superstructure that works directly against their needs. Until the broken duopoly is reformed, the Young Forwardists will support the free candidates who make up the brave minority willing to sacrifice their careers for the benefit of change.