MA: Surge of Independent Candidates Enter Final Campaign Stretch

In the Patriot Ledger, Nancy Reardon profiles the surge of Independent candidates for elected office at all levels of government in Massachusetts. Last year, of course, it became well known nationwide that registered Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans in the Bay State. Now the question is whether they will put their votes where their mouths are when given the choice to support Independent candidates or to continue to cast their ballots in support of Democratic-Republican misrule. Reardon reports:

Statewide, 65 non-party candidates will be on the November ballot, positioning themselves as the voter’s alternative to the two-party system that most all of them depict as government’s number-one problem. They’re running for nearly every office from county commissioner and state representative to U.S. congressman and governor. . . .

“This could be the year we actually elect three or four or five candidates,” said John Valianti, a self-described independent activist who earlier this year won state approval to have “Independent” be a political designation, an official title shy of party. The Marshfield resident lost a 2008 state representative race, to Democrat James Cantwell.

Valianti and a group of 10 South Shore-based volunteers are helping unenrolled candidates campaign and get their names out. He’s predicting wins this year, and more to come.

“At the grassroots level, this independent thing could really be happening,” he said.

But those not affiliated with a major party face an uphill battle. Their opponents have an organized political apparatus behind them, which means a widely-established network of volunteers, a percentage of reliable votes and – perhaps most glaringly – fundraising power.

Read the whole thing.

The Three Person Race and the Law of Unintended Consequences: the Establishmentarian Smear Campaign Against Political Independents cont'd

The other day, I noted that the Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association had launched coordinated smear campaigns against independent gubernatorial candidates in Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee) and Massachusetts (Tim Cahill), respectively. There has been significant fallout from the RGA's efforts in the Bay State. Via Memeorandum, National Journal's Hotline on Call reports that the RNC is not especially pleased with the RGA's strategy, led by its chair Haley Barbour:

Committee members have drafted a letter they plan to send to Barbour expressing their anger over the RGA's support for businessman Charlie Baker (R), the former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO running against Gov. Deval Patrick (D). The conservatives see Baker as a liberal who doesn't represent the GOP establishment . . .

the RGA has run radio and TV ads blasting Treas. Tim Cahill (I), a former Dem who is running as a third-party candidate. Cahill is running to the right of both Baker and Patrick, and RNC members say spending money to defeat him is the wrong use of the party's money.

Earlier this week, the RGA released the latest round of ads accusing Cahill of misspending taxpayer money while in charge of the state lottery. The ads aim to undercut Cahill's support as GOPers worry his success will hurt their chances to knock off Patrick.

As the Washington Examiner notes, however, the attack ads have had their intended result – support for the independent Cahill has dropped almost ten points over the last month, from 23% to 14%, according to Rasmussen Reports. Yet the ads also seem to have had the unintended result of bolstering support for Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick, who received a ten point jump in the same poll! Assuming, of course, that the RGA did not intend to boost Patrick by its smear campaign against Cahill. Before the RGA's campaign began, Republican nominee Charlie Baker was trailing the Democrat Patrick by seven points: Patrick (35%), Baker (27%), Cahill (23%). Now, however, Patrick leads Baker by almost fifteen points: Patrick (45%), Baker (31%), Cahill (14%).

These results are less interesting for their predictive power heading into the thick of the campaign season, than they are for their demonstration of how significantly a viable third party alternative to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican Parties changes the dynamics and political calculus inherent in our duopolized politics. It also demonstrates how fragile support is even for third party and independent candidates who are perceived as viable alternatives to the puppets of the corporatist two-party state.

The Failure of Political Representation is the Success of Democratic-Republican Party Government

One of the most common criticisms of Democratic-Republican Party government states that our political system is broken, that the Democratic and Republican Parties are incapable of adequately representing the interests of the American people, that the two-party state has been captured by entrenched factional interests, that the Democratic and Republican Parties are more concerned with expanding their power than reigning in the rampant abuses of power to which we have become accustomed from the Democratic and Republican Parties. But, arguably, this critique is fundamentally misguided because it is based on a misapprehension of the system's function, aims and goals.

The fact that the Democratic-Republican two-party state does not represent the interests of the American people, but rather those of well-connected corporatists and interest groups, the fact that Democratic-Republican Party government aims first and foremost at the centralization and monopolization of political power in the hands of the parties and their functionaries and hence seeks always and everywhere to expand rather than limit the power and reach of government authority – this is not evidence of the failure of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government, rather, this is evidence of its success. This is not evidence that the political system is broken, it is a well-oiled machine and this is how it has been constructed to function: to the benefit of the ruling criminal-political class.

Consider in this context the language that has come to dominate the debates between the gubernatorial hopefuls in Massachusetts. Independent Tim Cahill argues that the two-party system is broken because it exists only to advance the interests of the parties. From the Boston Globe:

Timothy P. Cahill, the state treasurer who won office as a Democrat and is running for governor as an independent, reached out to voters of all stripes yesterday in a live chat on Boston.com, defending his decision to run as a fiscally conservative independent instead of a libertarian or Republican.

“I am running as an Independent because I believe that the two-party system is broken. I don’t think either party has a monopoly on good ideas,’’ he wrote. “I am looking to do what’s best for the people of this state, not advance the tired agenda of a political party.’’

Interestingly, at a recent forum featuring Republican gubernatorial front-runners Christy Mihos and Charles Baker effectively agreed with Cahill's assessment:

"Charlie Baker and I are gonna work to rebuild this party and the two-party system," Mihos concluded. "The first thing is to stop spending money we don't have," said Baker in closing

One hears this sort of rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats all the time: "our political system is broken, but we will fix it." The ironic thing, of course, is that Republicans and Democrats are the problem; and so, by definition, their election represents either the reproduction or exacerbation of that problem. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to the problem represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state: vote third party and independent.

What are the odds of an independent sweep in the northeast?

In the northeast, three prominent and promising independent candidates for governor continue to attract the attention of commentators who recognize the latent power of those who have declared their independence from the two-party state and the politics of the Democratic-Republican political class. In the Providence Journal, Froma Harrop reflects on the regional trend in a profile of Chafee's candidacy in Rhode Island:

They make less of a ruckus than the Tea Party people, but independents in New England are brewing their own revolution. Third-party governors may have been elected elsewhere -- Walter Hickel in Alaska (1990) and Jesse Ventura in Minnesota (1998) -- but in New England, such candidacies have become almost routine.

Independents are making credible runs for governor in Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island. The strongest contender, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, is a former U.S. senator and former Republican. Polls show Chafee comfortably ahead of his likely Democratic and Republican rivals.

This regional trend preceded the Tea Party phenomenon. The U.S. Senate's two independents are Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders, both of whom caucus with Democrats. Connecticut's former governor, Lowell Weicker, had been a Republican-turned-independent. And if elected, Eliot Cutler would be Maine's third independent governor . . .

The third independent running for governor is state Treasurer Tim Cahill in Massachusetts. He and Cutler were Democrats. A recent Rasmussen poll shows Cahill with 23 percent support, putting him a reasonably close third behind incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick's 35 percent and Republican Charles Baker's 27 percent.

MA: Our Duopolized Discourse and the Independence of Independents

Sal Peralta, the Secretary of the Independent Party of Oregon, writes in to the Massachusetts Patriot Ledger to take issue with an editorial from earlier in the month, in which the paper mocked the very idea of an "independent" political party. "Where's the independence in an independents party?" they asked. The editorial perfectly demonstrates the intellectual obtuseness of duopoly ideology:

it’s a mystery why Marshfield businessman and former state representative candidate John Valianti wants to gather Massachusetts “independents” into an official state political party . . . There are three official political parties in the state – Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. If voters want a concrete political affiliation, they can join one of those parties or use one of the 18 political “designations” recognized by the secretary of state’s office . . . We have no scientific evidence or actual polling data, but we suspect most of the people who register to vote as unenrolled consider themselves “independent” – and don’t want to officially join an “Independent Party.” [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps it simply hasn't occurred to the Patriot Ledger that people might un-enroll from the Democratic and Republican Parties, not because they are opposed to the very idea of party affiliation, but because they are opposed to the idea of affiliation with the Democratic and Republican Parties. Peralta writes in response:

The Patriot Ledger editorialized against the formation of an Independent Party in Massachusetts and predicted few “independents” would gravitate toward such a party. The Patriot Ledger’s response was similar to that of some Oregon newspapers when we formed the Independent Party of Oregon.

As secretary of that organization, I would like to share a few thoughts with your readers. There is something happening in America that the mainstream political establishment and the mainstream press have not gotten a handle on: namely, that about half of all Americans do not believe the two-party system is working.

A recent poll by the Wall Street Journal showed 46 percent of voters favor formation of a third “independent political party.” Other polls have put the number at over 50 percent. Americans are tired of polarization, demonization and the unwillingness of partisan politicians to work collaboratively to solve the major issues of the day, and they are demanding a change. Where such change is being offered, people are gravitating toward it.

For the sake of the people of Massachusetts, I hope the Massachusetts Independent Party emerges as a force for the kind of moderate, pragmatic reform that our country so desperately needs.