Politics is not just about choosing between the Republican party and the Democratic party. It’s about making sure that people have control over their own lives, families staying together and whether the world we live in will still be livable for the next generation.
“I don’t care about politics” is not the neutral statement people think it is. You do not have to identify with a political party or blindly support one side, but when political decisions affect your family, safety, wellbeing or future, refusing to engage because “politics is not my thing” becomes more than neutrality.
There is a difference between not picking a side and not having moral principles.
Someone can be against both parties and still believe in human rights. Someone can criticize politicians on both sides and still believe in privacy matters. Someone can avoid political labels and still care about immigration, the environment, the effects of war and civil liberties. The problem is not independence. The problem is indifference.
We have the privilege of looking at our phones, seeing a headline, and continuing our day. We can scroll past stories about deportations, genocides, surveillance and environmental damage because those it’s not happening directly to us. But for someone else, that headline is their life.
Deportation is not casual. Genocide is not casual. Privacy violations are not casual. Human rights violations are not casual. These are not just political talking points. They are real life ongoing issues. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It also recognizes rights to life, liberty, security and protections against arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy, family and home. Those principles are bigger than a political party because they are not inherently Republican or Democratic.
This distinction is important because not choosing a political party is not the same as refusing to acknowledge what is happening around you. In her essay “The Dangerous Myth of ‘Neutrality’ in a World Gone Mad,” Susana Rinderle argues that neutrality can become harmful when it creates false equivalences between situations that are not equal. She stated that “neutrality protects and reinforces abuses of power” because it can remove accountability from those in positions of power. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to identify with the same political party. It just raises the question: What happens when neutrality becomes an excuse to stop caring?
To further establish the difference between political independence and indifference, Tiago R. Santos explained in his essay “The illusory pragmatism of the ‘pick-a-side crowd,” that not picking a side does not mean to both-sides everything. He describes impartiality as judging people and groups based on their actions rather than automatically defending the side they identify with. No one should feel obligated to defend a politician, political party or movement simply because they identify with it. People should be able to criticize the people they agree with, question information and decisions, and change their opinions. But even so, there is still a difference between questioning political sides and refusing to engage with political issues altogether.
Political neutrality is not just a personal choice. A 2026 study examined “democratic neutrality,” which the researchers defined as expressing neither agreement nor disagreement with undemocratic practices. The researchers analyzed survey data from 45,095 U.S. adults and conducted two additional surveys involving 3,039 people. They found that roughly half of respondents expressed neutrality toward at least one democratic practice. The researchers also found that neutrality was distinct from actively opposing undemocratic practices. In their candidate-choice experiment, people who expressed neutrality toward undemotic practices were less likely to penalize candidates who endorsed them. The researchers argue that this makes neutrality different from actively opposing those practices.
That does not mean every person who says they are politically neutral is apathetic. Someone might be uninformed about an issue, still forming an opinion or genuinely reject both major political parties. Those are different from simply not caring, but caring does not require you to align with a political party.
Political decisions have consequences beyond the screen.
A headline about deportation can mean a family being separated. A debate about privacy can mean someone’s personal information being collected or monitored. A discussion about war can mean civilians losing their home, children getting killed and a country’s history being wiped away. A decision about the environment can affect the conditions future generations will be subjected to.
Those consequences do not become less important because someone does not want to talk about politics. You do not have to pick a side. You do have to decide what matters to you.
Alejandro Henry-Jackson is an assistant arts editor and can be reached at alejandro.jackson@ubspectrum.com.
Photo: Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
