tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post907265220245048550..comments2023-10-28T03:07:12.758-07:00Comments on Mirror On America: Serious As A Heart Attack: The Independents' StoryBrian http://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-58311104856246950912009-10-19T22:22:11.138-07:002009-10-19T22:22:11.138-07:00Independents have been able to accomplish quite a ...<b><i>Independents have been able to accomplish quite a bit, based on your criteria. I'm wondering what your take is on how it happens that this story doesn't get out to more people.</i></b><br /><br />True, Independents have been able to achieve some successes. But it's uneven and it happens under the national radar. Independents are forced to operate outside of the normal channels, because the standard system of political networking.....those built-in advantages that the two main parties have, are not available to independents. While Republicans and Democrats can walk right through the doors that are built for them.... 3rd parties have to dig a tunnel under the doorway and through the floor to gain access to the same benefits that Dems and Republicans take for granted. That takes a lot more work....and the results will almost always be limited. Independents have to work twice as hard just to make a fraction of the progress that the big Parties make. The political infrastructure in this Country is built for 2 Parties. Independents and other 3rd Party groups are seen as folks disrupting the normal order. If you can't even get a seat at a debate.... then there is really no chance for true progress towards alternative Party development in this Country.<br /><br />Regarding why there is not more coverage of these issues... Again... it's the political infrastructure problem again. The American corporate media is hardwired to accommodate the 2 Party system. So is the American public for that matter. Plus, the 2 Party system is where all the money is. Since Independents are so disjointed...they can't consolidate their resources and compete successfully in the corrupt money game that is so much a part of the American political system. Having tens of millions of dollars at your disposal (like RNC and DNC leaders do) allows you to wield a lot of power.... the major networks want the ad dollars...and the access to political big shots. Therefore, they feel obliged to play the game. There is also this cushy relationship between American media and the political establishment. You have media folks who either have worked for government or have plans to work for government....so they feel the need to play along by accommodating the 2 Parties as much as possible. (Tony Snow is one example...but there are many others). They aren't going to do anything that upsets the status quo that they benefit from....by introducing alternative Parties and giving them airtime. It's just not going to happen.<br /><br />And the politicians are certainly not going to do anything to disrupt the status quo.... because they benefit bigtime from being among the dominant Parties.<br /><br />That's why we need laws that would lower the threshold for the number of signatures needed to get candidates onto ballots, guaranteed access to political debates (as long as certain basic standards are met), laws that would provide equal airtime for alternative Parties (if certain criteria are met), and laws to take big money out of politics....with public campaign funding...where everyone gets the same amount of money to start with. There are all sorts of ways to level the playing field. <br /><br />But you won't see any leveling of the playing field in this Country, because the two main Parties will always protect their interests. They have a vested interest in making sure alternative Parties and voices aren't really allowed to emerge. They will allow you to have a blog.... they will allow you to write books, they will allow you to protest and create petitions for people to sign.... but they aren't going to allow your candidates onto ballots (not without legal challenges)....and they aren't going to allow you equal media time and they aren't going to allow you to take part in debates (not without paying millions to try to block your candidate via the Courts).Brian https://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-84539837210383784002009-10-16T17:48:18.516-07:002009-10-16T17:48:18.516-07:00Angry Independent -- Thanks very much for drawing ...Angry Independent -- Thanks very much for drawing attention to this *imho* very important viewpoint and commentary by my colleague Jackie Salit about where the independent movement is at relative to health care (crisis) reform.<br /><br />I have followed Mirror on America for 4 years now, since I founded The Hankster, and it's one of my top favorite political blogs. Kudos for a job well done!<br /><br />In terms of our task here, as you say: "..without any formalized structure, or Party with any clout, or even a basic platform that most independents can agree with.... independents have been and probably will continue to be unable to demand any respect. Politicians either aren't motivated to court the independent vote in the same way that they court other parts of the electorate...or they find it difficult... because no one person or group speaks for independents. It's probably a case of a little of both. If independents represented a definable voting block (or block(s))...then they would be able to make political demands and would motivate politicians to be more responsive."<br /><br />Independents have been able to accomplish quite a bit, based on your criteria. I'm wondering what your take is on how it happens that this story doesn't get out to more people.<br /><br />After all, Salit et al. have created an organization of affiliated local and state-wide committees in 35 states of independents who are engaging the political powers that be structurally -- in the courts, on the ground and in the media. We are poised to elect the first independent Mayor of New York City (Mike Bloomberg, who is an independent running on the Independence Party line.)<br /><br />There are more and more voters who identify as independent (some 40-43% of the electorate according to the pollsters) and more and more politicians who are seeking support from that "unknown" bloc categorized as "independents"...<br /><br />If independents can use the current political structures (political parties, primaries, elections, etc.) to gain ground for ordinary Americans in our political process (open primaries, independents on the Federal Election Commission, Initiative & Referendum, non-partisan elections... etc.), that seems like a good thing to me.<br /><br />The American independent political movement will never look like the European movement because we have different histories -- after all, we are the Americans; they are the Europeans... that's partly what the American (and French) Revolution was about. We all may well end up in the same place (pro-working class, humanistic); history will tell.<br /><br />I look forward to the dialogue.<br />-NancyNancy Hankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17428253702914703243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083673.post-47846798273061436262009-10-15T03:59:19.461-07:002009-10-15T03:59:19.461-07:00One of the main problems for Independents is that ...One of the main problems for Independents is that they lack a formal organizational structure (ie. a Party, a political Organization, a platform, etc). Those who call themselves independents represent too many divergent interests.<br /><br />Therefore, without any formalized structure, or Party with any clout, or even a basic platform that most independents can agree with.... independents have been and probably will continue to be unable to demand any respect. Politicians either aren't motivated to court the independent vote in the same way that they court other parts of the electorate...or they find it difficult... because no one person or group speaks for independents. It's probably a case of a little of both. If independents represented a definable voting block (or block(s))...then they would be able to make political demands and would motivate politicians to be more responsive.<br /><br />If you look at these sorts of movements in other Countries... you will find that in most cases these groups weren't taken seriously until they organized more formally into definable blocks (The Greens in Europe, Kadima in Israel, etc, etc there are examples in a number of Countries). If Independents in the U.S. are to move to the next level, this formalization process will have to take place. Then and only then will there be any kind of fundamental tangible change to the status quo two-Party dynamic. Even if Independents formed a block consisting of 10-15% of the electorate...or broke into two groups of 10% each....it would still be monumental... because they would essentially become King makers and could become influential in shaping policy in this Country.<br /><br />I did enjoy this article though. Interesting take on independents. I am also annoyed by how independents aren't represented in the news or on the political programs. They could at least provide an independent pundit on the panels every now and then (other than Bernie Sanders).Brian https://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.com