Welcome to the Minnesota Independence Party CD2 Articles page!
The primary focus of our Party is to bring Minnesota politics back to pressing issues. The purpose of this page is to give people who live in CD2 a place to have their voices heard. We want to share opinions about national, state, and local issues.
By Tim Jones, Eagan, MN
Published April 14th, 2010
In his 2004 book America, Jon Stewart makes the following point about today’s two major political parties:
“The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia. It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed. The Democrats are utopians. They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies. Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather of independent thought.” (pg. 107)
Independent thought ... huh. That is exactly where we come in.
I absolutely adore Stewart’s practical irreverence, and his witty and disarming smarts. We could use him on our side. If only he were an Independent who could humorously justify to the masses the value in casting a vote that makes more sense than continuing to vote for the status quo each election. A citizen’s vote should be more productive; anyone over the age of four knows there is little use in using a white crayon on a white page. Stand out.
I dismissed conservatives years ago as having no sense of their own hypocrisy. They tout the Republican staples of personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, while being unaware of how selectively they apply those staples. Conservatives are only interested in protecting personal freedoms from being infringed upon by the government until someone they don’t even know wants to have an abortion, two members of the same sex want to tie the knot, or a nicotine addict wants to puff away in a bar, restaurant or casino without consequences, which happens to significantly impact the freedom of employees or patrons who don't want to inhale second-hand smoke. Conservatives are only fiscally responsible when they aren’t in office. Or they will blindly protect the bottom lines of corporations or the richest 10% of U.S. citizens from a capital gains tax or progressive income tax.
Having learned that the typical conservative’s idea of fiscal responsibility has the shelf life of a package of strawberries, the independent’s issue with the Democrats should be just as pronounced. The Democrats' willingness to hand our country over to the entitlement program abusers has made our American financial house look like the changing room at Kohl’s after an indecisive, color-blind guy on a budget is done shopping for interview clothes. It’s a mess.
At any rate, the two major political parties, and those they cater to, are a disaster and the average voter doesn’t seem to realize it. If they did, they would mend their ways. So why don’t they? Here are six suspect reasons people have given for not voting for Independent candidates, along with a fairly reasonable rejoinder:
In the March 10, 2008 issue of Time magazine, Joel Stein's column began with the heading “How Sorry is this Guy? If Ralph Nader wants any votes in this election, he should cop to the last one he screwed up.” (pg. 72). I wondered why Stein would write an entire page about how easily someone like Nader could be dismissed. Isn’t it easier to dismiss someone if you never actually pay any attention to them? According to Stein and thousands of other political pundits, Nader “[took] key votes from Al Gore.” People on food stamps, receiving housing aid, who haven’t worked in five years but are fully capable, feel less entitled to the bounty the U.S. government provides than a Republican or Democrat running for office.
Stein continued: “Nader just can’t admit that he’s at least a little responsible for Gore’s loss.” Stein seems to find Nader culpable for what we, as Americans, were put through between 2001-2008. It isn’t the Independent’s fault that the major parties put up two very average candidates in 2000; they put up pretty average candidates every four years, but I’m not surprised it goes unrecognized by the voters. Gore had every chance to overcome Bush, the rhetorical juggernaut, but was unable to do so. That isn’t Nader’s fault. Stein also contends: “It’s important for people who feel they’re not being heard to have the option to vote for insane, incapable candidates ... Only new parties can break us out of dangerous paradigms ... [and] a two-party system is designed to eliminate extreme ideas...” That brings me to the typical voter’s second objection...
This objection is easy to counter. Anyone ever heard of Dennis Kucinich (D), Larry Craig (R), Michele Bachmann (R), or Rod Blagojevich (D)? The sitting vice-president whispered an expletive into the president’s ear next to a live microphone, a device that is said to amplify sound. You would think that Independents wore a goat dressed up as Santa Claus costume every day of the year while campaigning, and whistled “Yankee Doodle Dandy” for every answer to any debate question put to them. Have I mentioned the craziness of infidelity yet? How about Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, or John Edwards? Then there's the just plain ego-maniacally corrupt Nixon. The RNC reimbursed a member of the committee nearly $2000 after a night spent at a bondage-themed nightclub. I wonder how every Independent can be dismissed, by the voters and the media, for being different while Republicans and Democrats continue to be rewarded (with political victories) for all being the same? Please see Judicial Watch for more information.
3. "Independents don’t have a chance to win."
This rationale would make more sense if the American public were choosing the high school prom king. This is quite possibly the most obvious case of a self-fulfilling prophecy I’ve ever seen. I explained to a former colleague who referred to this as his reason for not voting for Independents, when he was somewhat inclined toward Dean Barkley in 2008. I explained to him that in fact, an Independent does not have a chance to win if you don’t vote for them. This seems more obvious than deciding to reward a new puppy for not peeing all over the furniture, but people use it to avoid choosing actual change that might do them good. If just half of the voters who thought this way would amend their thinking, the Independent popular vote would begin to grow each election, locally and nationally, and people would see the flaw in their (for lack of a better term) logic.
4. "A vote for an Independent is a wasted vote."
This one isn’t all that different from reason numbers 1 and 3. After being informed that Nader would receive my vote in the 2008 presidential election, a relative responded with a wry smile, “So, you’re wasting your vote.” Typically, I vote my conscience and do not feel compelled to choose between the lesser of two evils. When I asked him which candidate would get his vote, he replied, "McCain." Later that evening I asked his son the same question, and he responded, "Obama." I simply leaned forward, touched his father gently on the shoulder and said, “It looks like you will be wasting your vote too.” If neither one of them voted, it would make about as much difference as my well-intentioned vote was going to make, considering the logic in reason #3 above. If we merely choose from among the two major parties every election, and the nation as a whole continues to be only 17-25% satisfied with Congress' job performance every year, it looks like virtually everyone is wasting their vote!
5. Mob rule logic
Consider that millions of voters are more disgusted with the continued failure of the Democrats and Republicans than Yoda was when Luke Skywalker couldn’t yet master the force to lift his X-Wing out of the swamp in The Empire Strikes Back. This is the corner the conscientious voter has been backed into by a typical voter’s logic:
A) Many of the self-righteous voters deride and belittle anyone who refrains from voting for any reason, even when the non-voter has no clue what the candidates stand for.
B) The conscientious voter cannot vote for someone that doesn’t have a chance to win (see reason #3) as that is a wasted vote (see reason #4) and we wouldn’t want to cost someone the election (see reason #1), as Nader and Perot were blamed for doing in 2000 and 1992 respectively.
C) The conscientious voter may mundanely vote for a Democrat or Republican because they have to vote, and they have to vote for a candidate that has a chance to win. Because, as we’ve learned, choosing a candidate for political office should not be distinguishable from the process of determining which child gets to choose their snack first from the pantry. Did I mention I have two children?
If the conscientious voter chooses either a Democrat over a Republican and, once elected, their candidate is either proven to be ineffective, is caught sleeping with interns, unconstitutionally wiretapping phone lines, or invading countries without congressional approval, then the voter is said to have only himself to blame. For, of course, the duped voter should take the responsibility for any action or inaction of the politician who “earned” his vote. Why a voter is held accountable for the mistakes of a politician, given the number of things out of the voter’s control, is peculiar to say the least. Some people who cast protest votes are simply waiting for the rest of the disgruntled citizens to catch up with them. And consider, 20 million protest votes will likely have secured for the country a third (and even a fourth) political party that can hold the other two accountable.
6. Voting for "change that makes a difference."
I’ve heard this one enough. Almost every politician who has run for elected office has used the word “change” to describe how their approach to solving difficult problems would be different than the incumbent’s. Heck, Woody Boyd, on the advice of a well-meaning Frasier Crane, used that as his slogan when he ran for city council on Cheers. And he won, so we know it works.
This year, many voters will consider that the Democrats had every chance to put through some meaningful legislation, but failed, and they will exchange them for Republicans, just as they had exchanged Republicans for Democrats four years earlier. This result is obvious, except to the average voter who will not question their logic or make a call to their temporal lobe (the part of the brain that controls memory). I am not sure what kind of Groundhog Day hell the average voter adores, but if I picked up the same kind of apple, and it was always infested with worms, I might begin to shop somewhere else.
Voting for change makes it seem as if the voter has some control, as if those who take this approach are all converting to Catholicism for the day and seek to punish the party in power by sending them to some imagined hell that even Dante never detailed. But neither party is ever really punished, as they know that redemption is only an election or two away. A 2-4 year stint in purgatory, as everyone knows, is very intolerable. This overused Einstein quotation is once more appropriate:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
My task is to provide the average Independent, and those disgusted with the status quo, who haven’t figured out how productive a vote for an Independence Party candidate could be, with the justification for persistently continuing as free-thinkers rather than to submit to the corrosive and collusive methods of the two entrenched major parties. I plan to continue with this subject next time.
The primary focus of our Party is to bring Minnesota politics back to pressing issues. The purpose of this page is to give people who live in CD2 a place to have their voices heard. We want to share opinions about national, state, and local issues.
Independent Thought 101: Don't Fall for Their Propaganda!
By Tim Jones, Eagan, MN
Published April 14th, 2010
In his 2004 book America, Jon Stewart makes the following point about today’s two major political parties:
“The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia. It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed. The Democrats are utopians. They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies. Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather of independent thought.” (pg. 107)
Independent thought ... huh. That is exactly where we come in.I absolutely adore Stewart’s practical irreverence, and his witty and disarming smarts. We could use him on our side. If only he were an Independent who could humorously justify to the masses the value in casting a vote that makes more sense than continuing to vote for the status quo each election. A citizen’s vote should be more productive; anyone over the age of four knows there is little use in using a white crayon on a white page. Stand out.
I dismissed conservatives years ago as having no sense of their own hypocrisy. They tout the Republican staples of personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, while being unaware of how selectively they apply those staples. Conservatives are only interested in protecting personal freedoms from being infringed upon by the government until someone they don’t even know wants to have an abortion, two members of the same sex want to tie the knot, or a nicotine addict wants to puff away in a bar, restaurant or casino without consequences, which happens to significantly impact the freedom of employees or patrons who don't want to inhale second-hand smoke. Conservatives are only fiscally responsible when they aren’t in office. Or they will blindly protect the bottom lines of corporations or the richest 10% of U.S. citizens from a capital gains tax or progressive income tax.
Having learned that the typical conservative’s idea of fiscal responsibility has the shelf life of a package of strawberries, the independent’s issue with the Democrats should be just as pronounced. The Democrats' willingness to hand our country over to the entitlement program abusers has made our American financial house look like the changing room at Kohl’s after an indecisive, color-blind guy on a budget is done shopping for interview clothes. It’s a mess.
At any rate, the two major political parties, and those they cater to, are a disaster and the average voter doesn’t seem to realize it. If they did, they would mend their ways. So why don’t they? Here are six suspect reasons people have given for not voting for Independent candidates, along with a fairly reasonable rejoinder:
1. "Independents cost other candidates elections."
In the March 10, 2008 issue of Time magazine, Joel Stein's column began with the heading “How Sorry is this Guy? If Ralph Nader wants any votes in this election, he should cop to the last one he screwed up.” (pg. 72). I wondered why Stein would write an entire page about how easily someone like Nader could be dismissed. Isn’t it easier to dismiss someone if you never actually pay any attention to them? According to Stein and thousands of other political pundits, Nader “[took] key votes from Al Gore.” People on food stamps, receiving housing aid, who haven’t worked in five years but are fully capable, feel less entitled to the bounty the U.S. government provides than a Republican or Democrat running for office.Stein continued: “Nader just can’t admit that he’s at least a little responsible for Gore’s loss.” Stein seems to find Nader culpable for what we, as Americans, were put through between 2001-2008. It isn’t the Independent’s fault that the major parties put up two very average candidates in 2000; they put up pretty average candidates every four years, but I’m not surprised it goes unrecognized by the voters. Gore had every chance to overcome Bush, the rhetorical juggernaut, but was unable to do so. That isn’t Nader’s fault. Stein also contends: “It’s important for people who feel they’re not being heard to have the option to vote for insane, incapable candidates ... Only new parties can break us out of dangerous paradigms ... [and] a two-party system is designed to eliminate extreme ideas...” That brings me to the typical voter’s second objection...
2. "Independent candidates are kooky and crazy." (These are code words for insane and incapable.)
This objection is easy to counter. Anyone ever heard of Dennis Kucinich (D), Larry Craig (R), Michele Bachmann (R), or Rod Blagojevich (D)? The sitting vice-president whispered an expletive into the president’s ear next to a live microphone, a device that is said to amplify sound. You would think that Independents wore a goat dressed up as Santa Claus costume every day of the year while campaigning, and whistled “Yankee Doodle Dandy” for every answer to any debate question put to them. Have I mentioned the craziness of infidelity yet? How about Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, or John Edwards? Then there's the just plain ego-maniacally corrupt Nixon. The RNC reimbursed a member of the committee nearly $2000 after a night spent at a bondage-themed nightclub. I wonder how every Independent can be dismissed, by the voters and the media, for being different while Republicans and Democrats continue to be rewarded (with political victories) for all being the same? Please see Judicial Watch for more information.
3. "Independents don’t have a chance to win."This rationale would make more sense if the American public were choosing the high school prom king. This is quite possibly the most obvious case of a self-fulfilling prophecy I’ve ever seen. I explained to a former colleague who referred to this as his reason for not voting for Independents, when he was somewhat inclined toward Dean Barkley in 2008. I explained to him that in fact, an Independent does not have a chance to win if you don’t vote for them. This seems more obvious than deciding to reward a new puppy for not peeing all over the furniture, but people use it to avoid choosing actual change that might do them good. If just half of the voters who thought this way would amend their thinking, the Independent popular vote would begin to grow each election, locally and nationally, and people would see the flaw in their (for lack of a better term) logic.
4. "A vote for an Independent is a wasted vote."
This one isn’t all that different from reason numbers 1 and 3. After being informed that Nader would receive my vote in the 2008 presidential election, a relative responded with a wry smile, “So, you’re wasting your vote.” Typically, I vote my conscience and do not feel compelled to choose between the lesser of two evils. When I asked him which candidate would get his vote, he replied, "McCain." Later that evening I asked his son the same question, and he responded, "Obama." I simply leaned forward, touched his father gently on the shoulder and said, “It looks like you will be wasting your vote too.” If neither one of them voted, it would make about as much difference as my well-intentioned vote was going to make, considering the logic in reason #3 above. If we merely choose from among the two major parties every election, and the nation as a whole continues to be only 17-25% satisfied with Congress' job performance every year, it looks like virtually everyone is wasting their vote!
5. Mob rule logic
Consider that millions of voters are more disgusted with the continued failure of the Democrats and Republicans than Yoda was when Luke Skywalker couldn’t yet master the force to lift his X-Wing out of the swamp in The Empire Strikes Back. This is the corner the conscientious voter has been backed into by a typical voter’s logic:
A) Many of the self-righteous voters deride and belittle anyone who refrains from voting for any reason, even when the non-voter has no clue what the candidates stand for.
B) The conscientious voter cannot vote for someone that doesn’t have a chance to win (see reason #3) as that is a wasted vote (see reason #4) and we wouldn’t want to cost someone the election (see reason #1), as Nader and Perot were blamed for doing in 2000 and 1992 respectively.
C) The conscientious voter may mundanely vote for a Democrat or Republican because they have to vote, and they have to vote for a candidate that has a chance to win. Because, as we’ve learned, choosing a candidate for political office should not be distinguishable from the process of determining which child gets to choose their snack first from the pantry. Did I mention I have two children?
If the conscientious voter chooses either a Democrat over a Republican and, once elected, their candidate is either proven to be ineffective, is caught sleeping with interns, unconstitutionally wiretapping phone lines, or invading countries without congressional approval, then the voter is said to have only himself to blame. For, of course, the duped voter should take the responsibility for any action or inaction of the politician who “earned” his vote. Why a voter is held accountable for the mistakes of a politician, given the number of things out of the voter’s control, is peculiar to say the least. Some people who cast protest votes are simply waiting for the rest of the disgruntled citizens to catch up with them. And consider, 20 million protest votes will likely have secured for the country a third (and even a fourth) political party that can hold the other two accountable.
6. Voting for "change that makes a difference."I’ve heard this one enough. Almost every politician who has run for elected office has used the word “change” to describe how their approach to solving difficult problems would be different than the incumbent’s. Heck, Woody Boyd, on the advice of a well-meaning Frasier Crane, used that as his slogan when he ran for city council on Cheers. And he won, so we know it works.
This year, many voters will consider that the Democrats had every chance to put through some meaningful legislation, but failed, and they will exchange them for Republicans, just as they had exchanged Republicans for Democrats four years earlier. This result is obvious, except to the average voter who will not question their logic or make a call to their temporal lobe (the part of the brain that controls memory). I am not sure what kind of Groundhog Day hell the average voter adores, but if I picked up the same kind of apple, and it was always infested with worms, I might begin to shop somewhere else.
Voting for change makes it seem as if the voter has some control, as if those who take this approach are all converting to Catholicism for the day and seek to punish the party in power by sending them to some imagined hell that even Dante never detailed. But neither party is ever really punished, as they know that redemption is only an election or two away. A 2-4 year stint in purgatory, as everyone knows, is very intolerable. This overused Einstein quotation is once more appropriate:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
My task is to provide the average Independent, and those disgusted with the status quo, who haven’t figured out how productive a vote for an Independence Party candidate could be, with the justification for persistently continuing as free-thinkers rather than to submit to the corrosive and collusive methods of the two entrenched major parties. I plan to continue with this subject next time.