X happens.
Community suffers.
Community decides they are suffering due only to X.
Community votes to ban X.
Community continues to suffer.
Community finds new scapegoat.
Community votes to ban the new X.

Over and over in history, we find examples of reactionary politics. From World War II to the Syrian Refugee Crisis; from Imperialism to Isolationism and back again. What has it brought us? We have come full-circle more than once. Seeking freedom and then voting it away. Seeking peace and bombing others in its name. Seeking shelters, then closing doors to others in those shoes.

Reactionary politics is mob-mentality in a (usually) civil manner. It has no true compass of its own and is easily persuaded to change sides, yet we continue to allow it to happen in the name of "who/what I really believe in doesn't stand a chance because ___." But there we are, back to reaction. We are so afraid that Y will happen if we don't Z that we forget we have our own moral and political compass.

We don't have two major parties anymore. We have a blob of reaction. Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives on one end of the spectrum, tied together labeling themselves Democrats; Conservatives, Tea Party, Evangelicals (AKA the Religious Right) on the other end, tied into the GOP. The liberty-seeking among us, once on either side of the fence, are now called to pick a side in the name of Z, because, of course, we don't want Y to happen.

What if each party were encouraged to divide in the name of principle? What if we were allowed to develop our principle in a working form rather than be judged by party labels?

Allow me a short tangent to the world of German politics - where minor parties are less discouraged from attempting to exist and where coalitions (and therefore compromises) are necessary, assuming no party achieves 50+%, thereby allowing a majority of the voting public actual representation. In my lifetime, I have seen the German system evolve from two major parties relatively equal to each other to one clear major party with several other parties participating in national politics. Whereas in America it is big news when one congressman is from a minor party, who must then choose which side to caucus with, in Germany it is almost ensured that minor parties participate, and the the coalition agreements decide the relationship they have with their major partners. The voting public is encouraged then to vote for their individual principle. Yes, some of this also becomes reactionary - we saw this in 2017 with the first national election since the Refugee Crisis. But the coalitions create a type of failsafe. 12.6% of German voters wanted to ban X (in this case, refugees) and that percentage guaranteed them some representation. But they are not a majority. The rest of the voting public, voting their own principles, voted for various parties that all wanted to continue allowing refugee support at one level or another. The resulting coalition of course is intense in its compromise, but ensures that neither extreme can move forward.

Looking at the 2016 elections in the US, we see that under 30% of eligible voters voted for each: Clinton and Trump. The vast majority of the remaining 40% simply didn't vote. If we look strictly at the submitted votes, we see that each received less than 50%. How can we learn from the German system? A system of compromise to ensure 50+% of the people are represented - a coalition, either with the opposing major party, or with one or more of the minor parties, would ensure that. (And could, in all probability, lead to greater voter turnout, but that is speculation at this point.) Where would we be today if a coalition had taken place? No longer would we be split - blaming X for Y, and when that doesn't work, blaming A, B, C, and D... Working together, we would be encouraged to stop blaming and to move toward real solutions.

The political world is not one-dimensional. X doesn't cause Y. X may have something to do with Y, but only as it relates to the rest of the political atmosphere of its time. It is time to stop reactionary politics and to allow us all a vote of our own principle.