On Sunday, Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens committed what has apparently become the ultimate political sin to the Democratic Party: she endorsed someone with a different letter next to his name.
Stevens, a longtime Democrat, lost the Michigan Senate Democratic primary to Abdul El-Sayed in August. But just two days before Election Day, she shocked her party by announcing her endorsement of quasi-MAGA Republican Mike Rogers. Barely an hour later, Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel declared that she is "no longer a member of the state party." Even now, after El-Sayed's victory in the Michigan Senate race, her political excommunication appears to stand. Suddenly, we seem to be remarkably offended when someone actually uses the individual liberty and thought this nation was founded on.
This controversy is followed by a series of monotonous weeks of tension between Stevens and El-Sayed, particularly over funding for Israel. After Rebellion PAC, founded by Piers Morgan frequent flyer Cenk Uygur, released a campaign blaming American aid to Israel solely for the remarkably high grocery prices, Stevens was quick to condemn it as staunchly antisemitic. El-Sayed, who did not authorize the advertisement, had his campaign publicly reject its message, yet he did not directly denounce it. Nevertheless, the disagreement meant to unite the party candidates escalated, and what was planned as an appearance together ultimately fell apart. And the result? You guessed it. Stevens ultimately crossed party lines. Whether Stevens made the right choice politically by endorsing Rogers is up for legitimate debate. But what's troubling is what seems like the expectation that she should have supported El-Sayed simply because they belonged to the same party.
Despite the fact that I have only been alive for about five election cycles, it seems that somewhere along the way political parties stopped being organizations that represent our beliefs and started becoming organizations that tell us what our beliefs should be, and end up reprimanding us for not having them. And that's the problem this controversy has brought into the spotlight. Americans are increasingly expected to fit neatly into one of two political boxes with no wiggle room. If you're a Democrat, you're supposed to always support the Democratic nominee. If you're a Republican, you vote for the Republican, no question. Disagree with your party on a single major issue, and suddenly you're a sellout or, worst of all, a moderate.
But political beliefs aren't meant to be a “you buy one, you buy them all” kind of deal. You are allowed to support abortion rights while also favoring stricter immigration enforcement. You can be in favor of Israel while simultaneously criticizing the Israeli government. And yes, you are allowed to believe in capitalism [insert shocked horror face] while recognizing that government regulation is critical. None of these positions requires a person to limit their ability to think independently.
Of course, critics of Stevens are raising a valid point. Her endorsement came at an extraordinarily important moment in one of the most closely contested Senate races happening this cycle. She had previously pledged to support El-Sayed, and now her reversal is raising some reasonable questions, not just about her consistency and political responsibility, but about politicians as a whole. Voting against your party doesn't automatically make you courageous any more than it automatically makes you cowardly. But that's precisely the point. The merits of a political decision by any politician, including Stevens, should be judged by the logic behind it, not whether it matches the platform of the party they belong to. When Republican Liz Cheney, daughter of the former VP Dick Cheney, endorsed Democrat Elissa Slotkin, the Democratic Party commended her for her bravery in crossing party lines. But now that a Democrat has done the reverse, Michigan party leaders seem to have forgotten that same rationale.
Still, this goes with out saying, political parties are inherently useful, especially in how the US government operates. For one, they can communicate the priorities and advocate for the people they represent. But party affiliation should be a starting point for forming your own political opinions, not a complete substitute for it. When someone tells you to "vote blue no matter who" or "red until you're dead," they're asking you to take your own political judgment and critical thinking and hand it over to an organization whose positions literally change with each election cycle. This all seems like a remarkable amount of trust to put in institutions that end up in gridlock like clockwork because they can barely agree on an annual federal budget.
And this matters beyond Michigan, especially for students who are still developing their own political identities. It's extremely easy to inherit our political beliefs from our parents, our friends, or even our favorite political commentators (whether that's Nick Fuentes or Hisan Piker, hopefully neither) without ever seriously questioning them. Social media only makes it easier. You pick a side, then follow the right accounts and let your algorithm repeat the right arguments, and congratulations, you've successfully developed a strong political identity without ever necessarily forming your own political philosophies. But our democracy depends on more than just people choosing a team. It depends on people thinking of their own ideas and occasionally having the courage to disagree with those closest to them.
None of this means Americans should abandon political parties, ignore the consequences of their votes, or stop voting altogether, because that ends up hurting democracy categorically more than it helps it. After all, independence without any thoughtful judgment is just 1984 with better branding. It simply means recognizing that neither political party, Democratic nor Republican, has a monopoly on good ideas or common sense.
Haley Stevens' endorsement may have rested on strong principles. Or it may have been misguided and politically disastrous. Reasonable people can disagree. But we're not asking whether every voter should just follow her lead. It's whether we've created a political culture that treats following your own principles as betrayal.
Your ballot is not a loyalty card. You don't get a free senator after voting for the same party ten times. It's an expression of what you believe, what you truly value, what your principles are, and who you trust to represent those principles. And if those beliefs don't match the letter next to a candidate's name, perhaps you shouldn't vote for that candidate simply out of loyalty. At the end of the day, the political party you identify with should never matter more than the principles behind your vote.
This article represents the views of its author, not necessarily those of The Current or NSU University School.