March 7 was the fiftieth anniversary of the first of three attempted Selma-to- Montgomery civil rights marches. Coordinated by a variety of groups including Martin Luther King, Jr., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the protesters trekked to Alabama’s state capitol building to demonstrate in favor of their voting rights. They never reached the capital. Blockaded from crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, marchers were subjected to horrific brutality at the hands of state troopers. Nonetheless, their voices were heard. Five months after the marches, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Fifty years later, civil rights leaders — like some of whom were present at the original march — and politicians gathered to commemorate the occasion and reflect on its significance. They came to celebrate the progress our country has made in protecting all citizens’ rights and to recognize the courage of the march’s participants. The Obamas attended, as did a number of big players in Washington politics. Even former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush participated in crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And with petty quarrels, insults and grandstanding, the “leaders” of this country managed to make it a circus. A dramatic production. Another weapon in their arsenal for a cutthroat crusade of us versus them.

The next day, The New York Times ran a front page photo of the anniversary march, one without Bush, and conservatives were livid. They spent their Sunday on political news talk shows complaining about the rampant bias of the liberal news media.

The Times does have a history of liberal favoritism, but in this case, there was a simple explanation. Despite initial reports to the contrary, the photo the Times ran wasn’t cropped. It was an entirely separate photo than the one containing Bush.

The photo that centered on the Obama’s and Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat (who helped lead the original Selma march) was simply much better than the one that included a wider view of the crowd’s front row, including George and Laura Bush. The published photo had fewer lighting and focus problems than the supposedly censored one. It was clean and crisp — everything one would want in a front page picture. Yet the uproar over aspects of this anniversary was unyielding. And it wasn’t one-sided.

Diane Nash, one of SNCC’s founders who had organized the original Selma march, walked out of the commemoration and refused to march when she saw Bush in attendance. She later accused him of standing for “violence” and “stolen elections” and being antithetical to the beliefs and goals of the civil rights movement. Never mind that during his presidency Bush had appointed Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State or that he named Condoleezza Rice, the first black woman to hold the post, as Powell’s successor. Forget that in 2006 Bush reauthorized the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, allowing federal oversight voting practices in select areas to continue when they had been set to expire. Forget about all this because the facts don’t matter — only the spin does. Events like the Selma anniversary and its media coverage are powder kegs that explode with unnerving frequency. And all it takes to create the latest firestorm is a trigger-happy pol with a point to prove, a competitor to castigate and a spotlight to snag.

By the time this column is published, this will all be forgotten, buried in the mud slung by the combatants in the dispute du jour.

Both of these parasitical parties live to feed on the frenzy these situations provide. While the clashes may temporarily rile and invigorate the most unrefined elements of each party’s base, their benefits are short-lived. The two parties are fatally addicted to the conflict that leaves moderate voters alienated and ordinary citizens apathetic.

To hear Democrats tell it, the Republicans are to blame for all of society’s most pressing problems: income inequality, cancer, puppies without homes and global warming. (Republicans think this is unfair because global warming doesn’t exist.)

To hear Republicans tell it, the Democrats are the reason this country has a federal deficit, angsty teenagers, obesity problems and pie in the sky ideas about the social safety net (To which Democrats respond that no proper pie is complete without whipped cream and a cherry on top).

Watching these politicians perform their usual song-and-dance routine, one could be forgiven for thinking he or she is instead babysitting a group of ornery, meltdown-prone toddlers who need their naps. When they get angry and lash out, they refuse to accept responsibility, instead blaming the kid who stole their soapbox and whining about the unfairness of it all.

No matter the scenario, we can count on our elected “leaders” to faithfully follow a prescribed script. Each group eagerly toes the party line, echoing statements of “shock” and “anger” and “disappointment” when they (or their supporters) suffer a perceived wrong. They courageously express these feelings about their political adversaries, the news media or society at large. The kicker? They’re not really outraged. They’re overjoyed to gain an excuse to lambaste their opponents and score political points. And this response is never more prevalent than in the aftermath of racial incidents and allegations of discrimination. Both parties attempt to exploit these occurrences to curry favor with those who share their views and to enhance a narrative they’ve been crafting for years.

Democrats savor these situations because it gives them the perfect opportunity to court minority voters while simultaneously leveling charges of racism at their supposedly old-fashioned opponents. Republicans relish the opportunity to hate this exact response because it allows them to air their grievances about the mainstream media’s rampant “liberal bias.”

Which brings us back to Selma. And how two groups used one non-incident to take cheap shots at each other and further distance themselves from the heart and mind of the American voter.

Americans are tired of this routine. In the 2014 midterm elections, The Washington Post reported that only 36.4% of the eligible population cast ballots, the lowest turnout since 1942, when we were battling the Axis Powers and trying to stave off a world collapse. We were a bit preoccupied. Now? We’re just fed up, and as a result, apathetic.

According to recent Gallup polls, Congress’ approval rating hovers around 20%. To put that in perspective, the Food Research and Action Center says the number of Americans who are overweight or obese is 68.5 %, over three times the number of Americans who view the legislative branch favorably. That’s not the sign of a healthy democracy.

So how should politicians get back on track? Pop in a breath mint to erase the noxious fumes emanating from their mouths. Come down from the sugar high of being on the news. Trim the excess fat from their diet of bombast. Eliminate the salt. Exercise some autonomy and common sense. Maybe then they’ll lose the weight and gain their constituents’ respect.