All too frequently we come across people: family, friends, colleagues, educators, etc. that blindly conform to their political party's ideologies. This is beginning to occur more frequently as our nation's fatal divide continues to spread yonder. While not all people are like this, the majority appear to be falling into the stereotypes of their affiliated party hence obtusely refusing to consider the reasoning for holding such notions while waving it away as the alternative is undoubtedly wrong or simply repeating the words of others representing their party.

This disregard for divergent opinions is leading to the absence of thought. Mind you, I am not arguing that people are not free to disagree and that such disagreement on certain subjects insults one's intelligence. Rather, I am arguing a case in favor of the freedom of thought and stating that the distinctions listed above attribute to the devastation of one's inherent skill of open-mindedness.

The knee-jerk reaction to another's opposition should be an effort to listen with an impartial ear and carefully consider all sides of the subject being discussed before coming to a conclusive decision. For this is the way we develop personal growth as individuals. It is okay for preconceived conjecture to be invalidated. In fact, we should openly embrace the act of repeatedly being proven wrong in order to adopt a deeper understanding of social issues. As society evolves, so should one's ethical reasoning.

To preserve the skill of open-mindedness, we must carry political affiliation and typology with a grain of salt thus preventing them from discerning our way of thinking. The purpose of political parties was to create communities of like-minded individuals sharing a similar moral nature. Not to seemingly morph into a singular entity feeding solely off of their party's doctrines.

For example, I consider myself an open-minded Republican. This label justifies a tendency to occasionally steer away from respective issues my associated party supports while reducing vulnerability to hypocrisy. While I walk among Republicans, it is only due to the way my values independently relate most closely with the holdings of the Party. My ethics have manifested from a combination of my upbringing, education, and personal experience with no direct influence from a particular political affiliation.

In other words, we do not need a precise term to define our beliefs. Such labels tend to represent limitations within self-identification and subconsciously subjects us to social compulsion leading us to advocate issues we might not otherwise condone. We are free to exercise the right to refuse associating ourselves with a party or use the affiliated term lightly. In doing so, we preserve the ability to think freely for ourselves and the wellbeing of others in the absence of a resolute partisan alliance.