On the Independent Option

The Gathering of the Clan: An Independent Political Option for America, by Thomas Richard Harry, was published earlier this year. At The American Family Gazette, Harry argues that Independents can "improve government for (at least) most of the people all of the time, and all of the people at least most of the time. I challenge either party to claim such ability—or even such a desire!" An excerpt:

When you have a one-dimensional spectrum of left-right politics, you have (only) one acceptable side to an argument, yours or theirs. Unless the weight of power is significantly in favor of one or the other, what do you have? Right: you have stalemate in most instances. This is especially true where ideological/philosophical issues are at stake—which is the usual case. Unless there is political compromise (Horse trading) or political intimidation (Arm twisting), nothing happens. Issues in need of resolution remain on the table unresolved, with each side accusing the other of the blame. What has this actually accomplished? Kudos, perhaps; defense of “ideals” and perhaps some succor for alpha-type personalities. But aside from such bragging rights, nothing gets done to solve the issue(s). That more often than not is what you get from severely partisan politics. An Independent option then is viewed as a means of overcoming this. So how do we go about accomplishing this, and what is our premise for doing so? At this point our premise for proposing such an option has been demonstrated with some degree of probability, to wit:
•(A) Independents now equal or exceed the number of voters who openly support either the Republican or the Democratic parties. Both require capturing a significant portion of this independent vote to win elections. None-the-less, their governing policies continue to reflect primarily if not exclusively the partisan nature of their ideology.
•(B) Such bipolar ideological approach to governing makes resolution of any number of issues of significance to all Americans difficult to achieve, exactly for the reason of partisanship.
•(C) Voter expression of political independence no doubt represents for some a dissatisfaction or disillusionment with either Party’s performance in governing. Just what percent of Independents hold such feelings is not at all clear, as many continue to regularly vote for one Party or the other much of the time. A primary reason for such continued if reluctant loyalty to these Parties may be the absence today of any practical political alternatives. . . .

What makes me believe that currently an Independent movement might be different? It might be different if it demonstrated to the voting public that its political agenda was both broad as well as different. That it didn’t represent just a different shade of the same political fabric. It might be different if it offered voters a clearly different deal; if it offered at least most Americans a different vision of governing. And it might be different due to the perceived state of affairs in government. We have on many occasions herein highlighted the degree of apparent political dissatisfaction evident in America today. It might be different if, as we hypothecate, enough Americans want a different outcome to make it different.

No comments: