Good news: I have found a great job! Not an easy feat in today’s state of the economy. Bad news: I don’t foresee the demands on my time disappearing anytime soon. Fatherhood brings with it new challenges and demands on my time that I honestly cannot juggle being a regular blogger with my offline life anymore.

So after much thought and deliberation, I have decided to retire my online persona the Liberal Arts Dude and to retire from active blogging.

It has been an excellent more than six-year run as a blogger starting with my first blog, the Liberal Arts Grad Blog and continuing on to politics and culture with An Ordinary Person. Along the way I’ve met and became friends with awesome bloggers such as The Hankster, D.Eris, The Angry Independent and became a semi-regular conributor to their blogs at some point. I am deeply grateful to them for allowing me the space and permission to contribute to their blogs, the opportunity to develop my writing skills, hone my personal political philosophy and be part of online activist communities.

If there is an opportunity to be a blogger again — and I am not one to say it will never happen again — who knows. But I see myself concentrating on job, family and career-related activities the next few years in the future.

So to the remaining readers of this blog, farewell and thanks for reading. I appreciate your patience in allowing me the opportunity to contribute my brain droppings to the Internets. To my blogger friends, keep on doing the great things you are doing online and realizing the potential of new media to educate and inform people with new and important perspectives that you do not often get from mainstream media sources.

This is the Liberal Arts Dude signing out — keep on rocking!

\m/

(the devil horns rocker emoticon if you are wondering what on earth this means)

This blog is officially on hiatus for the time being.

In the age of the Internet, government is transparent only when public information is available online. The Public Online Information Act (POIA) is legislation that embraces a new formula for transparency: public equals online. No longer will antiquated government disclosure practices bury public information in out-of-the-way offices and in outmoded formats.

POIA requires Executive Branch agencies to publish all publicly available information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats. It also creates an advisory committee to help develop government-wide Internet publication policies.

• POIA empowers government oversight and accountability by citizens, media, and government officials alike.
• POIA promotes intra-governmental coordination by bringing key players together to develop common standards for information transmission, streamline government data collection practices, and increase the sharing of information vital to our citizens.
• POIA contributes to economic growth by helping small and large business innovate, create jobs, and compete globally.

Read The Bill

Summary of POIA

POIA in plain language

Orgs. call for hearings

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.

Below is my Q&A with Mr. Scholtens:

A recent press release bills the Modern Whigs as the “anti-Tea Party.” Why?

I am not sure who is the author of those anti-tea party press releases, but I can tell you we are very, very different.  The Tea party is an emotional and ideological movement aimed around the size of government and general discontent with the elected officials. The Modern Whig Party is a pragmatic and methodology-based movement aimed at building a stronger candidate and a better-educated voter.  We have a very clear leadership structure and are tightly managed, where as the Tea Party is a non-centralized or controlled movement, which is part of why lots of people are drawn to the Tea Party. We don’t necessarily have anything particularly “anti” anyone but we are a totally opposite approach to ideology politics, which the Tea Party is.

How many members does the Modern Whig Party have? How many chapters in how many states?

We no longer publish our membership numbers. We do however have members in just about every state and we have chairman in over 28 of them.  None of the state parties are very large, the movement is only 18 months old, and has just gone through a major transition in December 2009.

Where are you strongest/most active?

We are strongest in Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, California, and Missouri.

In what ways have Modern Whigs worked with both Republican and Democrat-led initiatives in nonpartisan government and nonprofit projects? Can you point to web sites, news articles and other sources for people interested in learning more?

The Modern Whig Party is a methodology party. What that means is rather than control a base using ideology, we build structures, tools, and rules around methodologies that add value to both the common member and the candidate. However it is up to the individuals to interact with the methodology systems. As a result we care little for someone’s ideologcial beliefs, we focus on problems and solutions, cause and effect, without preconceieved notions of right and wrong. Our original founder was invited to a ‘non-partisan’ summit on healthcare put on by the Democrats early in the healthcare debate when they were attempting to build public support.  I put ‘non-partisan’ in quotes because quite frankly the two parties can’t do anything non-partisan, their ideologues make this against their very nature. So your question is oddly kind of a trick question, the ideologues would have to want to be non-partisan to engage us.

Your platform says it values “common sense fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and a focus on education/scientific achievement over strict social issues.” Can you give examples of current policy initiatives that the Modern Whigs support (such as a bill in Congress, politicians, social or political movements it has endorsed)?

We do not have any elected officals. Again, we are only 18 months old, and really we are only two months old in the new methodology-based party structure. However, unlike an ideology-based party that supports bills, a methodology supports tools to enable leaders. As a result its leaders who come up with what they support or do not support. For example: If you were to ask me what the party felt about “Obama Healthcare,” I would find the question illogical. How can a party think? Its a piece of paper I filed with the state. But you could ask me as a person what I feel. Now whatever conclusion I come to, I use and follow party structures, tools and rules in coming to my personal opinion and thus, when two Whigs debate each other they may not agree but their interaction is governed by the party, and thus the goal is to move to a solution.

Your web site stresses that many of the members of the Modern Whigs are also veteran service members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. How would a Modern Whig approach to foreign policy and the use of military force diverge from current Republican or Democratic approaches?

The party started as a veterans affairs based group, it morphed into a ideology-based party for the first 15 months. The Georgia Modern Whig Party developed the first ever methodology-based model and the national party accepted the model in December 2009. Having said all that once again we are a methodology based party, so each candidate comes to their own conclusions on foriegn policy, however the party does build tools to allow candidates to learn more about foreign policy, and tools for them to submit solutions, etc.

I am impressed by the breadth and thought that went into developing your platform and stance on various issues. How do you see the Modern Whigs influencing debates and public policy to enact these ideas into practice? How does the Modern Whig movement plan on flexing its political muscle, in other words?

“Flexing its political muscle” is illogical once again to the party. The party focues on allowing individuals to engage in the political system with value-added services. We hope to build candidates powerful enough to overcome this countries corrupt election system. If we can get candidates elected that owe nothing to their party and are powerful enough to overcome the special interests and political manuvering, we can have candidates who are once again focused on their voters not on those who “got them elected.”

How do you recruit new members? Is it primarily through word-of-mouth and personal connections?

Currently we are not advertising too much. A value-added methodology party has to actually build its value added tools in order make their theories a reality.  For example everything I can tell you would revolve around a vision, but in a few weeks our membership portal in Georgia is being launched and you can actually see what we mean by a value-added methodology party.

What makes the Modern Whigs different from other non-mainstream political groups and third parties like the Green or Libertarian parties?

All of those today are either ideology-based parties or solution-based parties. Ideology parties solve problems using ideology, which is illogical but there are good reasons for it. Solution based parties focus on a platform of solutions, such as the Unity Party out in Colorado. We are a methodology party so we provide tools, structures, and rules around methodologies that help individuals develop, but are not controlled mindlessly by ideology. Two Whigs might totally disagree with one another but the rules dictate how they have to interact with each other. Thus they have to be able to communicate, even if they can’t agree. There is a lot of complexity I can’t go into, but that’s the gist.

When you think of the Modern Whig Party the best way to think of it is not in the context of politics. Take a college, an IT business, and a political party, shake them together, and there you have the Modern Whigs.  People don’t join the Whigs because they agree with our ideology which is why they join all the other parties. They will join the Modern Whigs because we create value.

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.

In addition, the Coffee Party values diversity, is, itself, diverse and completely comfortable with the changing ethnic demographics of the US. Park argues that politicians are exploiting the anxieties people feel regarding these changing demographics for political gain and that it is wrong.

Cooperation is needed to solve problems and that no practical solutions can be reached when there is no cooperation in Congress. Dialogue is impossible when one side—a reference to the Republicans and the Tea Party movement in the healthcare town hall meetings over the summer of 2009—is engaged in tactics designed to shut down discussion.

Park says the Congress works for us – the American people – not corporations and not just a sliver of the total demographic. Congress should stop the endless fighting and get down to work on problem-solving and representing our interests as their constituents. The Coffee Party Movement is an open invitation to participate to anyone who believes that government should be part of problem-solving and representing our interests.

The Movement is Growing

I was able to speak with an organizer of the Coffee Party. He argued that many Americans are tired of the Tea Partiers portrayal in the media as the representation of the “Real America.” Many Americans oppose the Tea Party and their tactics and rhetoric and need a vehicle to represent their side on the debates and issues of a country in crisis.

In addition, the Coffee Partiers want to give voice to real economic populism that is designed to address the concerns of middle and working class Americans. The Coffee Party organizers don’t want the Right to have a monopoly of the populist side of the debate on economics and economic issues.

Their main struggle at this point is to come to a consensus on core principles and areas of focus. Their Facebook note on developing a platform for the movement reflects a desire to demonstrate, through practice and example, their commitment to (a) inclusivity and respect for a diversity of opinion and (b) a commitment to small “d” democracy and consensus-building.

We will try to show by example what a participatory democracy can and ought to look like. We need to show that we can come together as a community, despite our differences, and engage in a constructive dialogue that leads to solutions.

The movement is currently centered around social media networks. They have a website, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages.

• coffeepartyusa.com
• www.facebook.com/coffeeparty
• twitter.com/coffeepartyusa
• www.youtube.com/user/coffeepartyusa

Since they started the social media sites in early February, there are now over 40 chapters nationwide and growing everyday. Their Facebook group had over 20,000 fans as of the time I am writing this (late February) and growing rapidly.

Potential and Challenge for the Future

The Coffee Party Movement has the potential to really take off and spread like wildfire much the same way the Tea Parties started through social media and grassroots networks. I am very pleased that a citizen-centered, grassroots uprising other than a right-wing one is in the works which seeks to address the gridlock and polarization in Congress and the dysfunctional politics in general in Washington DC.

The very fact that within a month of launching that they have established nearly 40 chapters nationwide and have passed the 20,000 member mark in the Facebook page bodes well for their future.

The real test for the Coffee Party will come when they have reached critical mass, have established an organizational structure and then are in a position to DO something. Either support or oppose some political measure, or apply pressure on a politician by giving or withholding support. Once the Coffee Party Movement has passed the stage of conversations and meetings and are in a position to execute their ideas into practice will determine what type of organization and movement they will be.

Another big test would be how they are portrayed in the mass media and if the media portrayals create momentum that will allow the Coffee Party to control the narrative in the public consciousness regarding the issues it wishes to address. The American mass media is notorious for leaning towards sensationalism and soundbites instead of substantive, in-depth treatment of serious issues. And let us not forget the influence of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in allowing the Right to set the stage, climate and control the debate and to derail the momentum of any fledgling movement that they oppose.

Their organizers told me that they are non-partisan and fully intend to reach out and appeal to Republicans and conservatives as well as independents. Reading their Facebook wall comments and general thrust of their communications, they appear to have a primarily left-leaning membership and leadership (so far) with a focus on supporting the aims of the more progressive policies of the Obama administration.

The question in my mind is this a grassroots movement that independents can participate in?

The Coffee Party would do well to heed the findings and statistics in this study:

• Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era, Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009

People who self-identify as independents now outnumber those who self-identify as either Republican or Democrat. They have found both major parties inadequate, and are cynical about the two major national parties for solutions or leadership. Independents like me are independent precisely because we reject that the frame and scope of political debate and discourse in the U.S. should be limited to the Republicans and Democrats. Like the Coffee Party, we want solutions and problem-solving, not gridlock and endless partisan bickering.

If the Coffee Party Movement will succeed in truly transcending narrow partisanship it would have to watch out about becoming subsumed into or being perceived by the public as an appendage of the Democratic Party. Being a primarily liberal or Democratic organization and one which seeks to apply pressure to politicians to adopt more progressive positions is fine. The danger for the Coffee Party in appealing to non-Democrats lies in being seen as just another vehicle to elect Democratic politicians into office.

I gather that the Coffee Party Movement intends to be independent of the major parties. It bodes well for them to keep that vision in mind as they grow and develop their organization.

• Washington Post Online Chat with Annabel Park
• Washington Post article on the Coffee Party

Background and Context

I am a big fan of Thomas Frank’s book, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America which I reviewed in 2007. The book was an exploration of why many working class Americans seem to vote against their economic interests and consistently and reliably vote Republican. Frank’s answer, in a nutshell, is that the Democratic Party since the 1990s has abandoned its populist roots to become the other party of corporate interests and Big Business. With both major parties in collusion with Wall Street and big business and no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues, working-class voters really have no choice or platform to vote for or against in a two-party system except so-called “values” issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun ownership, prayer in schools, etc. And in this arena, Republicans have the Democrats beat as they have honed their appeal to social conservatives.

Frank’s book became very influential the past decade and was hotly debated in political circles on the liberal end of the political spectrum. It became a lightning rod for discussion on the policy thrust and direction of the Democratic Party and where it is going to go in terms of its appeal to working class voters in the future.

In late 2009 I heard that a documentary came out based on Thomas Frank’s book. I was highly excited about the film, being a huge fan of the book and having followed the discussions which centered on the question of the Democratic Party appealing to and actually representing the interests of working class and middle class voters. I was curious how the arguments that Frank made will translate to the film medium and what type of angle the film will take. I was especially curious how the film would hold up illuminating issues in the post-Obama era of American right-wing politics: the rise of conservative populism of the Tea Parties; the popularity of right-wing talk TV and radio personalities Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh; the rise of Sarah Palin and her impact among working and middle class voters, etc. I wanted to see if the film shed new insights to Thomas Frank’s basic question of why the right wing and the Republican Party are so popular among people who are being steamrolled and whose interests are being gutted by the policies of politicians who subscribe to conservative ideology and who belong to that political party. What angle does the film take, if any, in regards to this question?

The Film

The filmmakers of What’s the Matter With Kansas created a documentary that presents the characters and ordinary people who inhabit the political universe of Kansas in 2006 and 2007 largely as they are without making any judgments on their characters or their political affiliations. The filmmakers do not explicitly indicate if they intend for the economically depressed Kansas in the mid- 2000s and the Republican conservatives that have made a political stronghold in that state to serve as a microcosm of American society in general. That point is largely inferred based on the book that the film was based on. The film largely lets the characters tell their stories in their own words, without providing narration, voiceovers, and with background factual information largely absent. The viewer is largely left to see the characters as they are and to come to their own conclusions.

What’s the Matter With Kansas, thus, functions and is best understood on the level of metaphor rather than as a straight-up, political documentary in the style of Michael Moore. In fact, the movie seems to be the antithesis of the brash, in-your-face style of Moore who takes a position on an issue and runs with it, each scene designed to support his argument and rebut his critics. What’s the Matter with Kansas flows organically from vignette to vignette and character to character each narrating their view of the world, politics, Kansas, economic issues in their community, religion, abortion, homosexuality, politics, activism, etc.

Without giving too much away of the documentary, the film culminates in some conservative followers of a politically-active, evangelical pastor losing hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested and/or donated to a local amusement park (which has been serving as the headquarters for the church after the pastor was expelled from the main church for his Republican political activism) when the owner of the park filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The well-meaning investors, all friends of the owner and devout followers of the pastor, are devastated and even raise the question of amusement park owner as a crook and a swindler.

I saw these events as a metaphor for the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, for that matter) who, the film shows, supported and passed economic policies like NAFTA which has resulted in economic devastation in the American heartland. Could the two major parties be likened to crooks who have swindled ordinary Americans into supporting and believing in policies that, in the end, have been to their detriment?

The film also devotes a good amount of time to the history of Kansas as a hotbed of radical political activity in the 19th century. Female suffragists, Socialists, Populists and political radicals gravitated to Kansas and at one point in history, Kansas had Populist senators, governors and members in Congress. It was publishing a Socialist newspaper that rivaled the New York Times in circulation.

The book’s author, Thomas Frank makes a cameo and visits the radical cemetery where many of the figures from Kansas’ radical past are buried and a museum devoted to preserving artifacts from this era. He asks “what happened to Kansas?” to the archivist who says that in recent years, these facts and history have been largely forgotten.

What’s the Matter with Kansas Part II?

Since filming was done in 2006 and 2007, it is missing significant upheavals in American political and popular culture in recent years after Barack Obama’s election as President. The film largely focuses on the ideological battles between pro- and anti-abortion activists and the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage.

Fast forward to 2010 where conservative activism is explicitly angrier, economically populist and increasingly organized as in the rise of the Tea Party movement. I go back to my original question: does the film shed new insights to Thomas Frank’s basic question of why the right wing and the Republican Party are so popular among people who are being steamrolled and whose interests are being gutted by the policies of politicians who subscribe to conservative ideology and who belong to that political party?

I think a What’s the Matter with Kansas Part II is crying to be made in light of the events I described above. Yes, the film is relevant to presenting the values voter and the sway Republican Party and conservative ideology continues to have for a significant numbers of working and middle class Americans. In the post-Obama era in the wake of the economic collapse of Wall Street in 2007, bailouts and widespread populist anger, conservatism and the Republican Party, rather than be weakened and get marginalized to irrelevance, has experienced a resurgence with a vengeance.

These developments are counter-intuitive to me who sees conservative economic polices and the political party that largely advocated those policies as having been completely discredited by the economic collapse. Yet here we are in 2010 with Sarah Palin becoming a major player in national politics, the grassroots, anti-establishment energy of the Tea Party movement has become mainstream and co-opted by the Republican Party, right wing TV and radio as popular as ever. 2010 is about economic policy and how conservatism and the Republican Party continues to hold sway over a significant part of the population. What does this mean in terms of the American voter, the political choices that we have and the prospects of a radical uprising in the manner of the 19th century Kansas radicalism? If there ever were a time for 19th-century style Populist resurgence, it would be now. Yet the Right, inexplicably, seems to have the advantage on that end. Why?

The Liberal Arts Dude gives What’s the Matter with Kansas four out of five stars. Go see the movie when it comes to your area.

Overtaxed Europeans, inefficient and bureaucratic welfare states, a scloretic economy, high unemployment and inefficient political practices are myths that are quickly erased as Hill describes the development of the modern-day European Union countries from the post World War II period up to 2008. Hill paints a portrait of the European Union as ultra-modern, high technology savvy, and collectively, an economic powerhouse that seems to have implemented a system which distributes the rewards of a productive, capitalist economy more broadly and equitably throughout society. The result, according to Hill, are societies which are more stable, physically healthy, highly educated, has highest levels of quality of life for the vast majority of their populations, and whose people are buffered and insulated from the worst effects of the global economic downturn of the past three years.

This book is a addressed to American public policy makers, politicians, pundits, and those who have power to craft public opinion and policy to take a long hard look at American institutions, economic practices and structures, approaches to politics, policy-making, etc. – pretty much how running a country of 300 million people is currently conducted and ask – are we doing the best job that we can do and getting the results we intended?

Hill issues a challenge that if things were done a bit differently – patterned along European lines – the US could solve many of its problems such as providing healthcare to the population, addressing rising inequality, create a more equitable society where socioeconomic inequality is not so widespread, create a more environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy future, create more opportunities for and encouraging democratic practices in politics, rein in the worst aspects of capitalism which caused the economic collapse of 2007-2008, etc.

Getting to the Nitty Gritty: How Europe Does It

A book review is too short to do justice to the wide span of topics in Hill’s book so I will concentrate on the part which fascinated me the most. To illustrate Hill’s main point I will focus on the European approach to the economy.

Hill argues that Europe’s powerful, productive economic engine is able to spread its rewards more equitably and broadly because European countries have developed and institutionalized a unique set of practices and institutions that are designed to foster such results. Hill describes two practices in particular, as the Europeans’ secret weapons: codetermination and flexicurity.

Codetermination refers to the practice originating in post World War II Germany of having supervisory boards or work councils in companies that include elected employee representatives sitting side by side as equal decision-makers with stockholder representatives in supervising management. The practice has created a healthy degree of cooperation and communication between workers and management. These practices allow workers to gain significant input into their working conditions, have veto power over key decisions such as the introduction of new technology, holidays, schedules, mergers, layoffs, treatment of individual employees and dismissals.

Flexicurity permits relatively easy hiring and firing of workers in exchange for job training and retraining, apprenticeships for new workers, and generous financial and workfare supports for those who lose their jobs. The goal is to have a dynamic economy where companies can shed workers in a downturn but those workers are provided the support to maintain themselves, quickly retrain and get into new employment.

Hill argues Europe has found it necessary to depart significantly from the U.S. model and has done this by injecting two essential values into its economies: (1) a degree of economic democracy that has no counterpart in the US from the boardrooms to the shop floor; and (2) comprehensive worker training, skill development, and job placement provided by the state as a standard and universal practice. More than just injecting values, European governments have put significant commitment in resources, political capital and created institutions to support these initiatives. Most interestingly, Hill also argues that there is broad agreement and consensus in European societies regarding these practices and institutions – Left, Right, Center and other political parties agree that they are necessary, needed and are an integral aspect of the European way of doing things. There is no debate on whether these things should exist. They are just taken as a given.

Conclusion

I can anticipate the hysterical objections to this book already laced with closed-mindedness and arrogance: America, love it or leave it! If you don’t like the way things are done in the US, then you should get out! Creeping statism and socialism!

If you are someone who has an open mind and is seeing that the American way of doing things is not working and hasn’t worked for a long time, who sees the US as facing tremendous problems and our leaders and institutions ineffective in a partisan gridlock, and are looking for examples of other countries which may be dealing more effectively with the same types of problems, then you should read Europe’s Promise. Personally, I liked the book very much. I thought it was an engaging read and gave me a lot of new information and a perspective that I did not have before and I rarely see in US mainstream (and alternative) media.

Is there something critical I can say about the book? Perhaps I’d like to have seen included a serious and formidable counter-analysis from a critic that directly opposes Hill’s perspectives and Hill responding to that criticism. Hill presents information and short passages throughout the book which addresses the shortcomings and problems in Europe, especially in the areas of race-relations, immigration, catastrophic failures that occurred in the healthcare system (but which haven’t occurred since), etc. But these counter-arguments do not develop into a unifying and overarching critique of the European way of doing things. These passages merely serve as a backdrop for Hill to acknowledge and address that there are problems in Europe.

But that is a minor quibble. I enjoyed reading Hill’s book and highly recommend it to anyone interested in the question of: “In America, you are so rich – why don’t you have these things for your people?” The Liberal Arts Dude gives Europe’s Promise four out of five stars!

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!

It is a collection of essays on using the cell phone as a tool for political and social activism. The anthology contains an essay written by your truly on the work of Fahamu, a UK and Kenya-based Pan-African NGO which pioneered the use of cell phone text messaging for an activist campaign to enact legislation for women’s rights in 2004 among other high-profile campaigns which attracted international media attention at that time.

From the book description:

SMS Uprising provides a unique insight into how activists and social change advocates are addressing Africa’s many challenges from within, and how they are using mobile telephone technologies to facilitate these changes.

This collection of essays by those engaged in using mobile phone technologies for social change provides an analysis of the socio-economic, political and media contexts faced by activists in Africa today. The essays address a broad range of issues including inequalities in access to technology based on gender, rural and urban usage, as well as offering practical examples of how activists are using mobile technology to organise and document their experiences. They provide an overview of the lessons learned in making effective use of mobile phone technologies without any of the romanticism so often associated with the use of new technologies for social change. The examples are shared in a way that makes them easy to replicate -– ‘Try this idea in your campaign.’ The intention is that the experiences described within the book will lead to greater reflection about the real potential and limitations of mobile technologies.

If you want to learn about innovative uses of cell phone technology, are curious about its applications in activist campaigns, and want to learn more how this technology is being applied in activism in developing countries then this book is for you. Buy the book and tell them you heard about it from this blog!

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.

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.

This is the old “spoiler” argument which asserts that the way the current American political system is structured, that if you deviate from voting for major party candidates it will result in disaster. The example of Ralph Nader’s candidacy allegedly contributing to the Democratic loss in the 2000 elections giving us eight years of the Bush  Administration is always brought up whenever someone wants to make this point.

The most obvious counter to such an argument is if we continue voting for major party candidates even though we all agree they are doing a bad job nothing will change. The major parties have no incentive to take our wishes, ideas and perspectives into account because they will get our votes regardless of how much they screw up or how much they put their partisan and insider interests above the national interest. Following the advice above we as citizens are reduced to passive observers in politics whose sole job is to rubber stamp choice a or choice b and nothing more. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t sound very palatable or remotely democratic to me.

If a choice c or choice d exists which I feel better represents me and my perspective why shouldn’t I practice my freedom and right to choose? Does it result in siphoning votes off either choice a and b — so what? My vote doesn’t belong to either major party by default just because I hold certain beliefs. If the major party closest to my beliefs demonstrate time and time again that they are not willing or able to adequately represent my beliefs it is insanity to argue that my vote still belongs to them. That is putting party interest — THEIR party interest since I am not a member of either major party — over my own.

Will this result in the short term to electoral victories to major party candidates whom you most disagree with? Did it result in disasters like the Bush presidency?

Ralph Nader costing Gore the presidency is  a myth that deserves to be  challenged whenever it is invoked. Even if I had voted Democratic in the 2000 elections, Bush still would have likely won the elections. Because there were a heck of a lot more Democrats who either did not vote or who voted for Bush than the measly total of votes Ralph Nader got in the 2000 elections. If those Democrats only voted or had not crossed party lines to vote for Bush, Gore would have become President instead of Bush. If Bush won it had nothing to do with Nader being on the ballot and everything to do with Democrats’ failure to attract enough voters — Democratic  voters — to vote for their own party’s candidate. To blame independents and Ralph Nader for their loss is the height of dishonesty and arrogance. If Democrats can’t even get Democrats to vote Democratic what reason should independents have to vote their way?

America is supposed to be about choice, competition and the giving individuals the power to choose. Why can’t we practice those principles in politics? I favor giving the major parties good, solid competition. That’s the only way they will listen to the voters. Besides, if minor parties and independents can do a better job at the helm why shouldn’t they be given a chance to lead?

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

Is all politics reducible to the single goal of “winning elections?” I don’t disagree that winning elections is important. But more important in my mind, especially for independents and third party advocates, are goals such as movement-building, public education, political reform and establishing a foothold in the electoral arena. Absent viability to win elections on the short term, independents and third party advocates should set their sights towards the long term. And yes, that means participating in, voting in elections and losing. Perhaps repeatedly. But as political outsiders develop the infrastructure to compete with the majors victories will come eventually.

As a voter I would much rather throw my support towards these long-term strategic objectives for potential gains on the long-term instead of wasting my vote and compromising my beliefs for candidates and political parties who do not truly represent my interests just for the sake of winning one election for the short term. To me, voting for a candidate you don’t agree with or who has zero interest in representing you is the real wasted vote.

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 elections before the candidates are chosen such as party primaries, to make sure candidates of their choice will be represented on the ballot.

Following this advice effectively hogties independents and third party advocates to participating in politics only as members of either the Republican or Democratic parties. Primaries in most states nationwide are closed — meaning independents and unaffiliated voters can’t participate in them. Declaring myself a Republican  or a Democrat just so I can vote in their primaries doesn’t make sense to me — I am neither a Republican or a Democrat and declaring myself as such is an act of dishonesty and I believe, a big compromise of my beliefs as an independent.

There are efforts existing to make primaries open to independents and those I fully support. But I think putting the onus on independents to change the composition of major party candidates through the primary system is too cumbersome, roundabout and really isn’t a suggestion at all but merely a way of telling independents to abandon their beliefs and principles, play exclusively in the major party sandbox, and don’t deviate.

Moreover, just because you join and vote for a major party doesn’t necessarily mean you will have influence in it. Political parties are closed societies comprised of party professionals, politicians and their staff. Very rarely do  actual voters have an impact in anything that happens in the operations of the major parties or the behavior of the party insiders.

It would be much easier and more democratic to shift the power away from party insiders and into the hands of actual voters in elections. One of the ways this can be done by giving voters option to collectively say None of the Above to candidates and political parties on the ballot — it puts party insiders on notice about who the boss in a democracy should be — the general public of active voters.

If incumbents are doing a good job or candidates ran a good campaign, they will have the votes and have nothing to fear from the None of the Above option. But having this option in play gives voters the ability to send a powerful political message to the parties. If they are screwing up imagine the embarrassment if None of the Above gets more votes than them. Having that as a threat is a mechanism to keep political parties in line and gives the power in elections back into the hands of voters.

Conclusion

I hope that I addressed the three main points above adequately. My perspective is coming from the need to put authority and power back into the hands of voters and away from major party insiders. These suggestions are designed to give the ability to voters to put those who are in power on notice if they are doing a bad job. Ordinary people should have a strong voice and say in what goes on in politics and government. These suggestions are examples of ways these can be accomplished. But they require that the individual voter cease thinking of him or herself as a captive of either major party who cannot deviate from either one or else disaster will strike. That puts the power — too much power — voluntarily in the hands of the major parties and their insiders and away from voters and ordinary citizens. That doesn’t seem very democratic to me.

To me, voting and elections are supposed to be about democracy and putting decision-making power into the hands of The People. Democracy and democratic participation should be much more than a tired ritual and exercise of ratifying the pre-packaged decisions of party insiders — decisions largely out of the control and purveiw of ordinary citizens. To accept what passes for elections and democracy today as the only “realistic” and “pragmatic” option for voters and citizens and that they shouldn’t demand anything more is quite sad in my opinion.

There is a world of solutions out there to reform our political system ranging from campaign finance reform, voter registration, ballot access, voting methods, etc. and there are many activists and organizations working on these issues mostly under the radar of public consciousness. These groups are working on solutions designed to put democracy back into the hands of voters. I am an advocate of making these efforts more well-known and spreading the word that real, people-powered democracy is possible and politics need not be solely an exercise of holding our collective noses and settling for the lesser of two evils. That, to me, is what American democracy and being an engaged citizen is all about.