Recent machinations in the US demonstrate the danger of barracking for a party or figurehead and ''their'' outcomes, rather than calmly assessing policies, legal judgments and their consequences. Good ''party men'' can be a political hindrance.

Supporters of Barack Obama have recently lauded the passing, by the Supreme Court, of the so-called ''Obamacare'' bill. Chief Justice John Roberts, a known conservative, was set to reject the bill, on the grounds that it overstepped limitations on the federal government's powers, by forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. But Roberts revised his judgment, treating the scheme as a tax, which, as Obama's administration recognised before the decision, is well within the government's bailiwick. Roberts has been celebrated as a man of justice, and the court as a fair, progressive institution.

From the outside, it looks like a wonderful outcome. Millions of Americans, previously uncovered by Medicaid or Medicare, will be protected from the worst medical uncertainties and inequalities.

But things are rarely this simple. Roberts' judgment makes Medicaid optional for the states, so the spectre of inequality again raises its ugly mug. And Robert's judgement turns a health policy into an $800 billion tax, in tax-averse America.

There is a real possibility that the Republicans will pick up a great many votes because of this. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in reality a conservative institution, regains its badge of fairness, while one of its conservative members is celebrated.

So what looks like an obvious victory for Obama is not so straightforward. He gets his bill passed, but it has mutated: from health care to ''frightening tax''. And his conservative opponents on the bench, who gave him this strangely transformed bill, are now minor heroes.

The point is not that Obama ought to lobby the court to revise the judgment, or that the bill will not deliver its promises - this will require time and study. The point is that lauding this as a simple victory for the Democrats in general, and President in particular, fails to recognise the specific conditions and unintended consequences of the judgement. Simply because it is an ''Obama'' bill does not mean that its passing is something to celebrate unequivocally. Party affiliation misdirects attention, obscures details.

This principle is strikingly relevant to Australian politics, though our mistakes are more philosophical than tactical. For example, Tony Abbott's negative stance has left his own party policy-lite: the constant ''no'' mantra might take votes from Labor, but it is a poor way to prepare to govern a nation. This is to say nothing of his obstructionism on refugees: it makes the government look weak, but it is also a poor replacement for real-world solutions, which aim to protect the very human rights genuine ''liberals'' safeguard.

Democracy thrives on debate, not simple negativity. Die-hard Liberal voters might want their party to succeed, but not at the cost of their own capacity to develop intelligent and humane policy. One cannot see the big picture if one's criteria for voting is a party stamp.

But Labor die-hards can be equally short-sighted. Some have become so narrowly pragmatic, they do not mind the transformation of the party into a values-neutral machine for the acquisition of power. Yes, Julia Gillard has proven herself capable of diligence and political brutality - with her opponents, and fellow Laborites. But even with the carbon pricing policy, pushed through against serious opposition, she has not outlined any compelling vision for the country.

The price paid for this, as Tim Soutphommasane recently noted, is a philosophical vacuum. A political victory for Labor may, sadly, be a defeat for so-called ''Labor values''. They have the tools, but not the blueprint.

Both parties might want to reconsider whether their team's policies and possible victories are worth affirming.

Otherwise, they are pushing institutions, but not the ideas and values those institutions are supposed to uphold.

Indeed, the general loss of confidence in major political parties suggests that this is already happening among Australian voters. Many don't want more powerful party machines: they want vision, and they are not seeing it.

The United States also suggests one possible result of this: political parties transformed into apparatuses for vote acquisition, manned by narrow extremists. The US voluntary voting system complicates the analogy: it's often the zealots who show up at the ballot box, and organise others to do the same.

And, as American author and political commentator David Lebedoff has recently noted, US candidates sitting safely in gerrymandered seats have to appeal to the party men or lobby groups, not their more moderate constituencies.

But the portrait remains frightening: parties stacked with rabid mandarins, while ordinary voters turn off. This withdrawal then further impoverishes the parties, and political life more generally.

This is perhaps not the lesson our American friends want to teach - but it is one we might, in a bilateral spirit, gratefully accept.

Dr Damon Young is a philosopher and the author of Distraction: A Philosopher's Guide to Being Free.