When Survivor aired in May of 2000, viewers were captivated. The premise was intriguing—a group of strangers dropped on a remote island, enduring hunger, pain, fatigue, and dangerous exposure to the elements, utilizing primitive survival skills in a classic test of man vs. nature. They would compete against one another to determine which would ultimately prevail as the “sole survivor.”  It was a test of strength, wit, endurance and determination.  It was pure survival of the fittest.  May the best man (or woman) win!  It was a thrilling concept, and everyone caught the bug.  People gathered in each other’s homes and in bars to watch the contest unfold.  Which contestant would be the very best?  Who would “outwit, outplay, and outlast?”

The contestants were divided into two tribes camped in separate areas of the island, but the tribes periodically came together to compete against one another in tests of their survival skills.  The tribe that lost the challenge had to vote one of their members off the island at a tribal council ceremony.

At first, the contestants’ votes were focused on eliminating their weakest members and retaining those who contributed the most to the tribe.  But with a million dollar reward for the sole survivor on the line, the votes quickly became more strategic, focusing on the best interest of the individual rather than the tribe. Small cliques schemed in secrecy.  They became distrustful of one another; manipulative and conniving.  They made promises to one another and later betrayed them.  The strongest members were no longer seen as assets—they were considered a threat. So, weaker members conspired to vote them off the island, and thus, the Survivor “alliance” was born.

The “alliance” killed Survivor in its very first season.  Almost immediately, the beauty and purity of the original premise was destroyed.  Instead of it being an honorable competition in which strength and skill were rewarded with victory, it became a slimy, unseemly display of deceit, manipulation and betrayal.

Many of the contestants considered alliance strategies to be cheating and refused to participate.  This made them easy targets and they were picked off one-by-one.

A contestant named Richard Hatch was the sole survivor in Season One.  The best man did not win.  The only thing Richard was best at was lying, manipulating and betraying.  This set the standard for all future contestants.

In subsequent seasons of Survivor, contestants would understand from the start that unless they participated in an alliance, they would inevitably be eliminated. If they were going to be able to remain in the competition, they would have to be willing to engage in unscrupulous behavior.  In private camera interviews, they justified their actions saying that it was all part of the game, it was just a strategy, and it was the only way they could have a chance to win.  And they were absolutely right.

As proof, each season there was always that one sweet, naive contestant who refused to play dirty, claiming he or she would take the high road and depend only on their skills and strengths to achieve victory.  Viewers at home scoffed in sympathetic amusement, knowing that that person would be one of the first to go. Those who played by the rules were no match for the most ruthless of competitors.

The show was no longer fun to watch.  Instead of survival of the fittest, it became survival of the slimiest.  The beauty and purity of the original concept was forever marred, and would never be recaptured.

The American political system has gone the way of Survivor.

The original premise of our democracy was also captivating: originating from noble aspirations of freedom, justice and opportunity.  We were the city on a hill, the land of opportunity, a beacon of hope, a model for other nations to follow. Our founding fathers weren’t perfect—they had their shortcomings to be certain—but the principals of American freedom and democracy were honorable and inspiring.

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!  One nation, under God, indivisible!

A young nation fought for its freedom and bought it with blood.  Throwing off the oppression of a monarchy, it formed a new type of government made up of elected representatives—a government “of the people by the people for the people!”

Such admirable words.  So much hope.  So much potential.

Our electoral system was supposed to pit great political contenders against one another to determine who had the potential to do the greatest good for the country.  That was the premise.

But human nature takes a system like that and immediately begins to look for ways to twist it, cheat it, overpower it, and undermine it for personal gain.

Our system has become so corrupt that, like Survivor contestants, politicians must be willing make serious moral compromises if they are to have any chance at all of surviving on Washington Island.  And it’s no longer fun to watch.

The naive politician who insists on running a clean campaign, holding staunchly to personal values and integrity, addressing controversial positions honestly, and refusing to engage in slander and mudslinging has little chance of survival.

I once heard an interviewer say to a political candidate, “I don’t think you can go to Washington and not lose your soul. I’ve never met somebody who went to Washington and came back and I said, wow, you’re a better person.”  He later asked, “How do you go in and how do I as voter know that you’re not going to cut so many side deals to get that power that by the time you had that power, you’re no longer who we needed?”

The candidate fumbled a clumsy, uninspiring answer, but I never forgot the question.  I believe he touched on the most important question in politics today.  How do you go to Washington and not lose your soul?  That is the question at the core of the broken American political system.

How do you take a job in a pig sty and not get dirty?  How do you swim with the sharks and not be eaten unless you’re willing to become a shark yourself?

How do you get elected without getting into the mud, and how do you stay elected without compromising your values?  How do you accomplish your goals and get your policies implemented without making unseemly compromises?

Regardless of party or policy, these are the kinds of questions we need to be asking our representatives.

We voters should be asking some questions of ourselves as well.  We have some issues of our own to examine.

Are we willing to vote for someone that we know is corrupt just because of our party affiliation?

Are we willing to hold our party’s candidate accountable for misbehavior or dishonesty?

Do we reward smear campaigns by not bothering to fact check for ourselves?

Do we apathetically accept that all politicians are liars, and that deception and corruption are just business-as-usual in Washington?

Do we support policies that are in our personal best interest, even if they’re not in the best interest of the country?

By punishing integrity and rewarding bad behavior, we bear part of the responsibility for the brokenness of the system and we are reaping the consequences.

We have contributed to the formation of a government that is sharply divided into two powerful opposing alliances-the Democratic and the Republican tribes. Most of us belong to one alliance or the other.  Because each tribe is so intent on thwarting any success of the other, almost nothing gets accomplished for the good of the island.  Whenever one tribe presents and innovative solution to a problem, the other side must discredit it, and work to block or repeal its implementation.  It sounds malicious, but they have to do it to satisfy the tribe and secure their own positions on the island.  While each side purports to be working in the best interest of their respective tribes, they must always be strategizing for their individual survival at tribal council.

While many of us claim to despise the corruption in our political system, we have contributed to it’s demise.  Our alliance mentality practically forces our representatives to engage in the very behavior we scorn.

Is there any hope for righting the ship?  Could we ever return to the illustrious ideals of our original democracy?  Is it even imaginable that we could scrape off the filth and decay that has contaminated our founding principles and restore them to something honorable and pure once again?

I guess that’s up to us.