What Should an Independent Movement Do?

by Liberal Arts Dude, An Ordinary Person


There is wide disaffection among Americans about the U.S. political system. More people than ever believe that democracy is broken and needs to be fixed. Many people have a sense that it is no longer a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, but one that is overrun by special interests, lobbyists, corruption and where the voices of ordinary Americans are excluded.

Many people are sensing the limitations of the American two-party system and have decided, in large numbers nationwide, to reject that framework by declaring themselves as Independent or unaffiliated from either major party. About a third of the electorate currently declare themselves as Independent.

However, it is no secret that Independents are not a monolithic mass. Independents run the gamut ideologically from Right to Left to every degree in between in the ideological spectrum. There are conservative Independents who are against immigration and who are supporters of gun rights. There are Left independents who are anti-capitalist in orientation and support Progressive causes. There are Centrists who aim to be the middle in the left-right divide and eschew extremism in solutions to societal problems. It appears that the only thing Independents have in common is their distaste and alienation from the Democratic and Republican parties. If that is the case—if Independents are such a disparate group who cannot realistically agree on a single issue, is an Independent movement even possible? If a movement were to exist, what should its aims be and what goals should it have?

I believe Independents would best be able to position themselves and play to their strengths by adopting a structural, process-based approach to activism rather than an explicitly ideological approach.

Unity08: An Example of a Centrist Ideological Approach to Political Reform
The now-defunct Unity08 is a political reform movement which views the political system as broken and in need of serious fixing. They argued that the main problem with the System is that the political process and relationship between left (Democrat) and right (Republican) have become so polarized to the point that it has become a problem.

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system — and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.
Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.

The problem thus set, Unity08‘s solution is to present an alternative President/Vice President ticket in the 2008 Presidential elections as a way to galvanize voters who are disaffected from the System.

A Structural, Process-based Approach
I believe an approach that analyzes American democracy as a structural process rather than through the lens of ideology is the best approach to Independent activism and what goals they should aim for. To that effect I will cite Towson University professor Omar Ali’s analysis on what is wrong with the political system and Independent activist Michael Drucker’s prescription to fix it.

Omar Ali, in “Those Who Make the Rules, Rule" makes the argument that the problem with American democracy is systemic and rooted in the two major political parties being deeply entrenched in our political system. The major parties set the rules through which all policy is decided—who gets on the ballot in elections, who is included in candidate debates, what issues are addressed, how they get discussed, what laws are enacted, and what policy Americans are ultimately left with. Ali makes the point that the Democratic and Republican parties make those rules to suit their—not the American people's—interests.

To expose this deep entrenchment, Ali asks: Why is it that the Federal Election Commission, created by Congress to oversee elections, is itself structured to be overseen by three Democrats and three Republicans? Shouldn't a body that regulates elections be nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan?

Why is it that independent candidates running for office are often legally required to gather at least tenfold the number of signatures as Democrats or Republicans simply to have their name appear on the ballot? Shouldn't all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, be required to meet the same obligations?

Why is it that the presidential debates - the single-most important venue for the American people to assess who they will choose as their chief executive - are organized through a bipartisan group called the Commission on Presidential Debates headed up by none other than the former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties? Shouldn't debates be a civic rather than a partisan activity?

Why should Congress be structurally organized along partisan lines, and why should the Democratic and Republican Congressional caucuses, along with the majority and minority members of committees, have partisan staff funded by the taxpayers? Aren't political parties supposed to be non-governmental bodies?

Why should state election boards and commissions around the country be comprised of appointees of the Democratic and Republican parties? Remember Florida 2000? Election boards and commissions should be neutral, nonpartisan bodies to facilitate elections for all Americans.
Ali’s questions and historical analysis of how the American political system came to be the way it is today is dead-on in explaining how voices and perspectives outside of the two major parties are shut out from substantive participation in American democracy. Indeed, those who make the rules, rule—and the two major parties have structured the rules of the political playing field to their advantage.

The way out of this trap, according to him, is for those who reject the two-party system to redirect the country towards a participatory, citizen-driven, populist democracy. That means citizens have to change the rules by which politics is played.

New York Independent activist Michael Drucker lays out a comprehensive plan of reforms in this blog post. His list is an excellent example of the types of reforms that can be taken by political outsiders to open up the playing field to a wider variety of groups and perspectives.

Same Day Voter Registration: Voters can register on the same day of an election, helping to increase participation — especially among young voters.

Term Limits: Limit the terms of Senators and Assembly Members to between 6 and 8 years. It brings an end to life-long career politicians, and allows for citizen-run rather than special interest-run legislatures.

Ballot Access: Ballot access laws should be rewritten to facilitate rather than discourage candidates from running. Petitioning periods need to be lengthened to make it easier for insurgent candidates and independents to qualify for a place on the ballot.

Initiative & Referenda: Permit citizens to circumvent their legislatures by circulating a petition (”initiative”) to place a proposed legislation (”referendum”) on the ballot.

Non-Partisan Municipal Elections: Eliminate party primaries to increase both participation of candidates and voters, who are exposed to broader range of choices.

Campaign Finance Reform: Level the playing field between independents and the majors.

Open and Inclusive Debates: The Commission on Presidential Debates should be abolished in its current in favor of a non-partisan body that sets equitable criteria for the inclusion of candidates at the presidential level.

Analysis
Unity08’s explicitly ideological approach to reform is flawed from the very beginning because:
(a) They do not address the systemic aspects of the problems in the US political system—the structural problems that Omar Ali explicitly addresses.

(b) Unity08 is primarily an appeal to people who consider themselves Democrats and Republicans (albeit disaffected ones). It is not an appeal to independent voters who do not self-identify with either one of those labels. In one stroke, therefore, Unity08 makes a solid third of the electorate irrelevant in their movement.

(c) Untiy08 is not an appeal to those who are already organized into third-party political groups—those segments of the population who have taken the trouble to self-organize into alternatives to the two major parties—and ones most likely to be politically active and participate in any reform movement. Unity08’s explicitly Centrist ideological orientation excludes those who maybe as equally alienated as they are but who do not share the Unity08 Centrist philosophy.

Unity08 ceased operations in January 2008 due to funding problems. They really never got off the ground beyond a few high-profile public relations campaigns and never really developed a wide, grassroots following. It will take a deeper look into Unity08 to explain the exact reasons why they failed but I can’t help but think that much of their problems stem from a, b and c that I cite above.

In contrast to Unity08, the Ali/Drucker approach are a set of highly specific prescriptions designed to open up the political playing field to insurgent candidates, political parties, and outsiders to the two major parties. These prescriptions deal with the nuts and bolts of how political parties participate in elections, how people vote, how campaigns are financed, and how issues and candidates are discussed in the public sphere.

Such an approach can be adopted by groups with quite disparate views. Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens and Socialists, for example, can have common cause to work together in opening up the political system so that all outsiders can have a fair shot. Once a foothold is gained in the system, then let democracy and democratic debate take its course. But the important thing is to open up the process so that a wider variety of players can participate.

Why is This Important?
Any movement needs a focal point with which to focus its energies and resources. Given that Independents can range in ideology from hard right to hard left and every point in between they will most likely disagree on very specific issues. What they have in common is their alienation from the two major parties and their status as political outsiders with not much power and representation in the political system. It makes sense, therefore, for them to work together to open up the system so that they can have a fair shot at participating with the major parties.
When people say “Independent” many people actually conflate the term with ”Centrist” and have the image of the political Independent as someone who is trying to get to the middle road between the extremes of Left and Right. I believe Independents, if they are to be effective, cannot afford to be middle of the road. They have to be extremists and radicals—but not in the sense of holding a particular ideology. They have be radical in looking beyond the structural limitations of the two-party system and envision a better way to invigorate democracy. And they have to be radical in the sense they are willing to do the hard work of actually making it happen and to go against the established and entrenched way of doing things.

Activism has to have a goal in mind and a vision it is trying to fulfill. I believe an effective Independent movement should have as its aim a truly participatory, citizen-driven democracy. Which means, at the very beginning, to open up the political system to perspectives and players outside of the two major parties without regard to ideology. Once that door is open, then let democracy take its course.

For comments, please contact Liberal Arts Dude, or The Hankster.

Independents, ground games, and Unity 08

Obama does well among women and young voters and — here’s what really persuades me — is taking a large number of independent voters. (Claude Lewis in The Monitor)

The ground game does not always go as expected, and dollars don’t always equal votes. (CQ Politics on the Clinton/Obama contest in Nevada)

Unity '08 calls it quits -- Obama seems to be carrying the unity message, and Bloomberg seems to be picking up the bipartisan mantle.... (Los Angeles Times blog)

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Unity 08's Doug Bailey thinks 55% electorate would be open to an independent Bloomberg run., and that should be encouraging... (NY Sun)




• Both (R and D) Iowa primaries in a dead heat + four of five Democrats and two–thirds of Republicans say they are angry at the U.S. political system = ???? (Zogby.com)




• "Spoiler" label for Ron Paul -- Hmmmm.... he must be doing something right in New Hampshire (Wall Street Journal)




• Pew Research says Hispanic voters now prefer Dems (NY Times)




• Obama appeals to the nonprofit sector, points to Harlem Children's Zone as model program (Chronicle of Philanthropy)




• Steven Stark talks about the latest Rasmussen poll and its significance to Obama & The Black Vote in South Carolina and throughout the South (RealClearPolitics)




• Oprah Winfrey’s Obama -- will black women listen? (By: Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com)




• Vance Norgaard to run IP in Minnesota special state Senate election (Pioneer Press)




• Virginia's Lucky Narain running independent for vacant 1st Congressional seat (Stafford County Sun)




• Ballot initiative filed in California to end "winner-take-all" electoral votes. Who would benefit? (LA Times blog)




• Party-controlled system is eroding participatory democracy in New Jersey. (Cherry Hill Courier Post editorial)




• Nonpartisan elections Von Reichbauer initiative -- call it voters' revenge (Seattle Post Intelligencer)




• Activist Paul Jacob (see yesterday's post on The Hankster) expects 'ham sandwich' justice from Okla. AG (LegalNewline)




• I&R would helpf shift balance of power to back to electorate (LETTER to Asbury Partk Press)




• Gennifer Flowers likes Hillary (NY Post)




• Question of the week: Who do you vote for? Do you follow the party line or do you carefully consider each candidate when voting? Add your comment to the question of the week. (Napa Valley Register)

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Ohio's Lake County independent-minded voters have history of picking the president (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
• William Weld pitches for Unity 08 (NY Sun)
• Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani heads off Christian Right independent run for president (Lawrence Kudlow-Washington Times)
• Ron Paul supporters independent of the campaign raised $4 million online and $200,000 over the phone in one day (Star Telegram)
• New York: The view from the pundit's desk "Obama dangerous because he threatens Clinton's grip on the black vote" (Buffalo News editorial) The view from the ground "The growth of the Independence Pary and its role in cultivating political mobility among black and other traditional Democratic constituencies is key." (Jacqueline Salit's The Black and Independent Alliance, 2006)
• Ron Walters: The challenge facing black candidates like Sen. Obama who have national ambitions "isn't whether they're black enough. It's whether they're white enough." (Jonathan Kaplan-Wall Street Journal)
• Obama goes for the capillaries-Barack Obama delivers a rousing speech in Iowa on Saturday night, all but calling out Hillary Clinton, and then gets weak-kneed on Sunday morning. (By Walter Shapiro-Salon)
• Obama Shines in Iowa (The New Republic blog)

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Edward J. Rollins, a campaign manager for Ross Perot's 1992 presidential run, writes in the Washington Post that Mike Bloomberg is no Ross Perot, and that's the good news--Perot ignored millions of volunteers...
• Nick Rivera comments on Unity 08 on The Moderate Voice, saying that third parties coalesce around issues, that the basis of a party can't be "all 'independent-thinkers' who have grown tired of the polarization in Washington"...
• The New York Times overlooks the Perot vote to point out that independents vote for partisan candidates...
• R.J. Eskow writes at Huffington Post: A lot of independents don't want "bipartisanship." They're antipartisan. ...

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Ralph Nader thinks Bloomberg has a shot (MSNBC)
• Bloomberg cuts party ties; would voters do the same? (EDITORIAL Austin American Statesman)
• If Unity'08 Builds It, Will Bloomberg Come? (Hotline)
• MD court explains disparity for independent candidates (Daily Times )

Conversations on Independence

Steve Soto on The Left Coaster thinks Mitt Romney may be positioning himself as an alternative for independent voters.... Nathan on MySpace thinks a bi-partisan ticket would appeal to independents.... RJ Eskow's piece Play-It-Safe 'Centrists' Are Weakening the Democratic Party is posted at his interesting blog Night Light... and Dick Arney at Time magazine's blog Swampland thinks independents will be voting their pocketbooks in '08.

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Major parties choking democracy, grass-roots efforts (Des Moines Register Iowa View)
• Opening the Space in American Politics (The Conservative Voice)
• A Failure of Leadership in a Flawed Political Culture (Washington Post)
• Unity Limps On, Recruiting 106 Delegates a Day (Irregular Times)
• Spoilers or swing voters? Independent Texans founder Linda Curtis discusses corridor, politics with area group (Victoria Advocate)
• Idaho GOP’s Move to close primary concerns some (KTVB)
• Don't take independent voters for granted (Letter from Betty Ward to Concord Monitor)

Conversations on Independence

Candidates, candidates, candidates everywhere.... Daily Kos has an interesting poll going that is currently showing 265 votes for Al Gore (is he running? Djneedle83 points to a "strengthening volatility" among the "democratic/independent electorate"... ), 88 for John Edwards and 61 for Barak Obama. Hillary comes in at 15.... Meanwhile An Ordinary Person and Politics in America "Fixing a Broken System" points out that one of the big problems in the approach that Unity 08 takes is that it only appeals to people who identify with one of the major parties.

Unity '08

Bipartisan baloney? (..... "Decline to state" is the epithet concocted by our state Legislature consisting of Republicans and Democrats to covey their disdain for anyone who refuses to be identified with either of those parties.....")

Will Mayor Bloomberg run for Prez?

From Washington Post reprinted in Concord Monitor: ...He has expressed to friends a deep frustration with partisan politics in the United States. And if he ran as a Democrat, he might sacrifice his reputation as an independent-minded businessman who is above politics.
But running for president as a third-party candidate has its own risks and challenges. The two-party system makes it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot, and waiting until next year could make that hurdle insurmountable.
Bloomberg could have help in that area from a group that is planning to hold a "unity" primary to nominate a bipartisan ticket for the White House. The group, Unity08, was founded by, among others, Hamilton Jordan, President Jimmy Carter's chief of staff.
"Unity08 believes that neither of today's major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans," its website states. "Both have polarized and alienated the people. . . . Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008." ...Said one confidant, "Is there going to be a Perot moment where a third-party candidate can come in, much the way Perot did, and have it make sense so you're almost halfway sold before you're out the gate? ...

A bold gamble on bipartisan third party

David Broder on Unity '08 (Indianiapolis Star): Thirty-nine states allow a new party to petition onto the presidential ballot, without having a named candidate, but the deadlines and numbers of signers vary widely. The first test will be whether Unity08 attracts enough volunteers and money to carry out that effort. And then comes the challenge of recruiting a candidate or candidates for Unity08 to back....

2008: Unity '08

A THIRD WAY?McCain finds help in Maine, By SUSAN M. COVER (Morning Sentinel Maine Today) -- While we're on the topic of presidential politics, former Gov. Angus King is working with a group called Unity '08, which is hoping to create a bipartisan ticket for the 2008 presidential election.
As explained in The Atlantic Monthly, the idea is to team up a Republican and a Democrat who didn't get his or her party's nomination and run them as a ticket. King, an independent who served eight years as governor, is listed on the group's Web site as one of 32 people on the Founders Council.
To learn more, go to http://www.unity08.com.

I havent' been keeping up on Unity '08, but I heard that they filed some papers with the Federal Elections Commission and were designated as a PAC...