I'm not prone to discuss politics here, as I have a fairly tenuous grasp on my own political affiliation.

I grew up in a family of Democrats, and have always been registered as a Democrat. I've always had some sort of identification with that party as, in some fashion, the one that worked more to help two-earner families. That's a pretty broad statement, and I'm sure those of you reading this (a group that, based on those who I know or assume read this at least casually, runs a very wide swath of the political spectrum) would have various arguments for against it. Quite honestly, I don't care. Not that I want to quash discourse, or am so close-minded that I won't brook argument against the position.

Rather, I'm about as politically indifferent as you can be and still have an interest in politics. Suffice it to say that my current political philosphy runs most closely to what Hamilton and Madison were talking about in Federalist Papers 9 and 10: political parties are too self-interested to give a whit about actually doing the most good for the people.

Not that I think we've got a lot of options as far as that goes, but I do believe, in principle, that the Republicans and Democrats are as interested in propogating themselves as they are in promoting legislation and supporting the commonweal. The increased bray of partisanship (perhaps just better noted in this media-saturated world) leads me to this conclusion. If it's not Newt, it's Tom. If not Tom, then Trent. And if Trent's got a head cold, you can whip in Dennis or Teddy or whomever.

The event that got me started on this path? Iran-Contra. Dems wave the laws, the GOP bangs the drum, and everyone is out to score points for party and personal use. Watching the hearings unfold made me more and more infuriated with how apparently everyone was missing the point. People broke laws. There was evidence of that. Call in Adam Schiff and Jack McCoy!

Anyway, my personal revolt from party politics didn't occur in '88, when I voted for Dukakis. Part of my reasoning was that it would kind of cool to have a President from my home state; not that it worked out so well the last time. 1992 saw me vote for Clinton, though had Iran-Contra started six months earlier I'd probably have voted for Perot.

And then the anti-party thing kicked in, fueled by the 1994 Congressional elections, the "Contract with America" and all that. 1996 saw me throw my vote to Dr. John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party. Their platform is pretty much that transcendental meditation will cure what ills the world. And they campaign with yogic flyers! How could I pass these guys up?

Then there was 2000, an election which saw me vote for candidates from five different parties. Went with Nader and the Greens, given that, were I better person, I'd live up to what I think about environmental issues. The other parties that got votes were the Dems, the Libertarians, this guy who ran against Teddy Kennedy, and one other party that escapes me (as I think about it I probably wrote someone in, so it's not technically a different party, unless they happened to consider themselves such).

Not sure what triggered this line of discussion, other than the idea that Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, probably won't make the primary ballot for the Massachusetts governor's race thanks to a rule that limits listed candidates to those who get 15 percent of the delegates to support them at the state convention. This rule favors, not surprisingly, entrenched candidates who have larger organizations. For the 2002 election, this is especially galling as it means we'll get candidates like secretary of state William Galvin, treasurer Shannon O'Brien, and senate president Tom Birmingham. None of whom inspire a lot of confidence (even with Jane Swift as the alternative!). And no, they don't get links. They're not worth the time, and The Simpsons are on.