A poll released this week by Fox News says that one in six likely voters identify themselves as being part of the Tea Party movement. I think that should alarm anyone who values the health of the republic over the health of their alliances.

I’d be just as alarmed if one in six said they were a member of ACORN or MoveOn.org. It even scares me that nearly three-quarters of American adults specifically identify themselves as either a Republican or a Democrat.

In his farewell address, George Washington spoke out against the concept of political parties and the dangers they would cause. Washington rightfully argued that the “spirit of party” would lead to power-grabs over responsible policies.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,” Washington wrote. “The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to see security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

Washington might be mortified to learn that the American presidency – that sacred trust that was designed as a great leap forward from the despotism of monarchy – is now not only the head of state, but the head of party.

We live in an incredibly complex and diverse country. We come from an infinite number of backgrounds. The typical American household has hundreds of cable channels to choose from. We speak hundreds of different languages in our homes and have 30 major league baseball teams. Yet nearly three in four of us say we’re in one of two parties.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t take sides on issues, and I’m not saying that there’s always a middle ground. I’m not even saying that political parties should be completely eliminated. But their impact and power should be mitigated.

Think of all the variables that go into making a burger. How do you want it prepared: rare, medium-rare, medium, medium-well or well-done? Sesame seeds or no sesame seeds on the bun? Ketchup? Mustard? Mayo? Relish? Pickles? Cheese? Lettuce? Tomato?

With those variables we have 2,560 different ways to make a burger.

Now, who would you like to have control of your country and make decisions that affect every aspect of your life? Nearly three out of four of us choose A or B.

Granted, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Within each party are factions, and within each faction are blocs and within each bloc are people and within every person are doubts and questions. I’m not saying every Republican is in lockstep with Mitch McConnell, or that every Democrat is blindly following Barack Obama. Certainly not.

But it’s a little scary that the “spirit of party” Washington worried about has seemingly become the most important element in our political system.

I don’t think either of the major parties has all the answers. I would imagine that even the most die-hard members of either would agree. I also don’t think any of the small “third” parties are better options.

Perhaps at the root of the problem is that political power has become too rewarding – that it’s so beneficial to one group of people to be in power that their primary objective is to remain in power. They do so under the guise of serving the country – but if either party’s primary objective were truly to serve the country’s best interests, we wouldn’t hear about the need for “change” every election cycle.

Years ago I was a cub reporter covering a congressional race in a district served by the same House member for more than 20 years, and during that time he had never won by less than 30 percent of the vote. I pointed this out to his Republican challenger during an off-the-record conversation and asked how he expected to win.

The challenger said that the congressman was serving the district “extremely well,” and in fact that he didn’t want to win. The district would lose its seniority, he said, and power on a committee that was beneficial to it.

So why challenge him at all?

The challenger said, and I’m paraphrasing here because I don’t still have my notebook from back then, that the congressman needed a challenger from the right every two years to help keep him in the middle.

Even then, I respected that challenger. He saw the needs of the district over the needs of his party. And, in a purely symbolic move, I wore his button while I voted for the incumbent.

Bryan Clapper is publisher of Leader Publications. He can be reached at 687-7700 or at bryan.clapper@leaderpub.com.