The Modern Whigs: Methodology Over Ideology

I recently got a chance to exchange emails with Drew Scholtens, Chairman of the Georgia Modern Whig Party and member of the Modern Whigs National Executive Committee. The Modern Whigs is a revival of the previously defunct political party which was last active in the 1800s. Prominent Whigs included Abraham Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, and Millard Filmore.

From their web site:

Established in 1833, the Whigs are one of America's oldest mainstream political parties. We were the original party of Abraham Lincoln and four other U.S. Presidents. Revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the grassroots movement has quickly [attracted] new members. We represent the moderate voters from all walks of life who cherry-pick between traditional Republican or Democratic ideals in what has been called the Modern Whig Philosophy. This Washington DC-based national movement values common sense, rational solutions ahead of ideology and partisan bickering. This includes general principles of fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and educational/scientific advancement.

Curious about what makes the Modern Whigs different from other third party and grassroots protest and political movements, I sent a few questions to them and was fortunate enough to get a response from their leadership.

Full article at the An Ordinary Person blog.

The Coffee Party: The Anti-Tea Party

The genesis of the idea for the Coffee Party Movement and its purpose is best explained by the video above. It all started with documentary filmmaker Annabel Park venting her frustrations on her Facebook page about media coverage that made it seem that the Tea Parties were representative of the “real America.” She vehemently disagreed and her comments on Facebook got a lot of feedback from people who similarly felt pent-up and frustrated.

Their name the “Coffee Party” directly references the Tea Party movement and presents itself as an alternative. Park argues elected officials who represent us should work towards positive solutions to the problems the country faces instead of adopting obstructionist political tactics that play on peoples’ fears and which are driven by deliberate misinformation.

The Coffee Party is currently organizing nationwide. It is stressing the message that its members are voters who intend to hold elected officials accountable to holding up progress. Its members will participate and be engaged in the political process.

Posted in An Ordinary Person blog

Public Education On Independent and Third Party Politics

More and more I am convinced that a large amount of people in the general public agree with independents and proponents of third parties on their complaints about the American two-party political system and its limitations. More and more I am observing pundits seriously exploring the third-party question in mainstream media. Vigorous discussion usually ensue in the comments section of web sites on the pros and cons of third party activism. People are genuinely intrigued and looking for alternatives to the two-party system.

What is interesting to me in these discussions is that, for the most part, actual third-party advocates and independent activists who have been working in the trenches on these issues for years are rarely consulted or their opinions highlighted in these explorations of third parties. Except for a few rare exceptions (Jackie Salit of the CUIP being the most prominent example) most third party and independent advocates are not tapped for their knowledge and experience on the challenges of being an activist for third parties and independents by the mainstream media. I think that is a huge opportunity lost to educate the public and a gap that the third party and independent community should seriously consider filling.

It is one thing for dissatisfied partisans to philosophically explore the possibility of third parties. It is quite a different experience for the discussion to have the voice of an actual activist who has been working this beat for years. In my mind, the issue of how to make a third party a viable choice in a two-party dominated landscape becomes a much more interesting (and educational) discussion if it included information such as alternative voting methods designed to reduce the spoiler issue, such as instant runoff, range and other voting methods. Or how about the role of electoral fusion laws in how third parties have become a force where it is legal? Or the challenges of ballot access for third parties – not theoretical discussions of how hard it is to accomplish -- but real, boots-on-the-ground experience from actual third parties and independents who have managed to secure ballot lines and the trials and tribulations they had to go through to accomplish that feat?

Most regular people who are not familiar with third party or independent activism would not know about these things. But imagine what would happen if enough light bulbs got lit in peoples’ minds about how realistic – not how unrealistic – third party and independent activism can be. Especially if guided by the wisdom of people who have been in the trenches of this type of activism for years or decades.

I see, therefore, a need for a serious, coordinated public education campaign by actual advocates of independent and third party politics. A campaign designed to:

(a) let the public know that there are activists who have been working on these issues for years;

(b) let the public know about the practical, nuts and bolts issues involved in third party and independent activism;

(c) educate the public about the different methods and strategies third party and independent advocates have developed to compensate for the role they have to play in an uneven playing field; and

(d) introduce and make known the various big players within the third party and independent community – the people which members of that community look up and whose efforts have been most effective through the years in galvanizing the community.

Politics is About People, Not Parties

Sometimes I come across a particularly profound political insight that I just have to share it widely. This is one on the political participation of young people in European politics from the Personal Democracy Forum:

Young Europeans do not want political parties in their lives. Only 4 percent of young people (15-29 year olds) participate in a political party or trade union (on Euronews from Eurostat statistics). This is a clear figure of what young people want or do no want. Political party politicians and their acolytes would quickly blame the education system, capitalism, the television or even the Playstation for the lack of interest in politics of young people. They are blinded by their group thinking and narrow perspective of what politics is. Politics is not only, and not even mainly, about what political parties and their representatives (the so-called "politicians") do. This fact, many people, including young people, know very well. I recommend the party people to go one night around bars in any city or town in Europe, to listen to what people are talking about. They talk about politics beyond political parties and their captive public institutions. They will be surprised to hear that there is political life outside the party. For politics is mainly about people and what they do, and not about organisations of any kind. That is why we need to reform the system to give chances to those who want to talk and participate in politics, but do not want to be captive of an organisation that has its own interests, often different than the interests of the rest of us.

Given the oft-cited statistic that the number of self-described political independents in the U.S. is surging rapidly I would say that what is said in the quote above holds true for us here in the U.S. as well. Politics should be about people, their needs and solving problems. Not narrow partisan interests. Most people are wising up to that insight and would prefer a political system that is responsive to those needs.

Yes to people-centered participatory democracy and no to narrow partisanship!

Book Review of Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny

The bottom line: the Liberal Arts Dude gives a hearty standing ovation to Theresa Amato for writing this book. I give it an enthusiastic five out of five stars! Why the overwhelmingly positive review? Let me explain by illustrating with a story about ordinary people seeking a change to the status quo to something better resembling the promise of democracy.

In more than one occasion in online forums which discuss social and political problems in the U.S., I have observed people say that they are sick of seeing professional politicians pay lip service to reform and solving problems but who, upon closer inspection are ineffective, corrupt, or turn out to be uninterested in reform despite their political rhetoric.

The disgruntled citizen then offers him or herself as a viable alternative to the status quo and announces his or her intentions to “throw the bums out” by running for office. The citizen seeks to prove that an honest and concerned citizen can do much better at cleaning up American politics than the traditional, professional politician.

For every concerned citizen who has ever felt this way and are serious on a run for electoral office I suggest very strongly that they first read Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny. This book should be required reading for those who seek to make a difference in American society and who aims to make that difference by using political office as a vehicle for social and political change.

To read the complete article click here.
(originally published in the An Ordinary Person blog in June 2009)

Settling for the Lesser of Two Evils is the Greater Evil

As a voter and citizen in a democracy I should be able to vote my conscience and beliefs in elections. At its core this involves voting for candidates which represent my beliefs. Absent any palatable candidates, I would like to have some sort of mechanism to register my blanket disapproval such as a “None of the Above” option. Having such an option would put political parties and elected officials on notice that they aren’t up to snuff and the general public expects a lot more than what they are currently offering. These suggestions promote choice and competition in politics — that’s the American way right?

To my surprise, I get a lot of resistance from people whenever I broach such issues. People typically agree with me about how much our choices in elections in candidates and political parties are inadequate. But when the discussion veers towards answering the question of what we can do about it and I broach the third-party and independent option this is where I encounter resistance.

Some objections:

* Voting for third party and independent candidates will only result in siphoning votes away from the major party candidate you most agree with, resulting in a win for the major party candidate you most oppose. Therefore, your vote for an independent or a third party only increases the likelihood of the major party candidates whom you most disagree with winning and is wasting your vote.

* Politics is a game where you can’t always get what you want. Winning elections always involves some sort of compromise.

* Having a None of the Above option is stupid. Voters should just choose between those who are on the ballot. If they disagree with the choices, they should be active in the stages of politics before the candidates are formally chosen such as party primaries, to make sure candidates of their choice will be represented on the ballot.

I will try to address these issues one by one.

Read the complete article by clicking here.