Why I Don’t Subscribe to Any Particular Political Leaning
Brian Sankarsingh thinks about modern day politics
TO OUR LOYAL READERS: Hi everyone, Brian here. Before we jump into today’s article, a quick favour to ask: we’re working to grow our community this year. We’re proud to be in the top 1% of Substack publishers for consistent, free content.
If you enjoy our work, please consider sharing our Substack with a friend or colleague. It’s a simple way to support us and spread the word.
Thanks so much — now, here’s today’s article.
Our world is increasingly divided along ideological lines. However, I choose a different path. One that places principle above party, policy over personality. I do not identify as liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian. Instead, I cast my vote based on policies and ideas that resonate with my values, not the charisma or branding of political figures.
This decision is neither apathy nor indecision. It’s a conscious rejection of tribal politics which is the kind that demands allegiance not to ideas, but to identities. Too often, political affiliation becomes shorthand for moral virtue or intellectual superiority, when in reality, every political ideology has its blind spots and contradictions. By stepping outside the binary, I want free myself to evaluate proposals on their merits rather than their messengers.
Charismatic leaders have always played an outsized role in politics. They can inspire, energize, and mobilize. But too often, charisma becomes a substitute for substance. A stirring speech or viral moment might mask weak policy or questionable ethics. History is filled with popular leaders whose charisma belied destructive agendas. I refuse to be swayed by that alone. Leadership should be judged by the clarity of one’s ideas, the feasibility of one’s plans, and the consistency between words and actions and eventually by the ability to do what was promised.
Nor is religion my political compass. While faith can offer powerful moral guidance on a personal level, it is not a universal framework for policy-making in a pluralistic society. My political decisions are not driven by religious doctrine or the agendas of faith-based institutions. I believe in the separation of church and state not as an attack on religion, but as a safeguard for democracy. There is a separation for a reason! Public policy should be shaped by shared human values like justice, compassion, and dignity, not by theology that may not be shared by all.
Too often, religious rhetoric is weaponized to justify exclusion, deny rights, or enforce a narrow vision of morality. I respect everyone’s right to their beliefs, but those beliefs should not be imposed on others through legislation. A good policy should stand on its own merits. That means logically, ethically, and pragmatically regardless of whether it aligns with any religious viewpoint.
This is where my personal freedom is empowered. If promises weren’t fulfilled, if transparency or accountability were ignored, if the party seems to have lost touch with the policies that affect an everyday person…I vote against them.
Political parties are, at their best, vehicles for organizing collective action. At their worst, they become echo chambers that prioritize winning over wisdom. When I evaluate candidates or platforms, I don’t ask whether they align with a particular ideology. I ask: Does this policy improve lives? Does it uphold justice, fairness, and sustainability? Is it rooted in evidence and guided by compassion? This approach allows for a more nuanced and responsible form of civic engagement. It means I can support a conservative fiscal policy if it is well-reasoned and equitable, while also backing a progressive stance on climate action or healthcare if it is grounded in scientific consensus and social responsibility. It means acknowledging that no side has a monopoly on truth.
Refusing to wear a political label does not mean standing in the middle or trying to please everyone. It means embracing complexity and rejecting the oversimplified narratives that dominate our discourse. It means being open to change, willing to listen, and ready to revise one’s views in the face of new evidence. It’s not always an easy position to hold. In today’s polarized environment, neutrality can be mistaken for weakness, and independent thought for indecisiveness. But I believe that democracy functions best when voters think critically, ask tough questions, and hold all leaders accountable regardless of which banner they wave or which colour they represent. In the end, my allegiance is not to a party or pulpit but to principles. I vote with my conscience, guided by the belief that what truly matters is not the color of a campaign sign, nor the sermon behind it, but the content of the policies it promotes and how those policies affect us all.
Bio: BRIAN SANKARSINGH is a two-time award-winning poet and author. He is a Trinidadian-born Canadian immigrant who has published several books of poetry on a wide range of social and historical themes including racism, colonialism, and enslavement. Sankarsingh artfully blends prose and poetry into his storytelling creating an eclectic mix with both genres. This unique approach is sure to provide something for everyone.
Thanks for reading Seeking Veritas by The Professor, The Poet & Friends! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.