Reader’s Forum — Sadie Moore Stewart

cathylstewart

I hope that this book is on the reading list at HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). In fact I would like to suggest if not, that Ali reach out. As a Native of Tuskegee, Alabama, I was particularly pleased that you provided, by example, the political nature of the late great Booker T. Washington.

A former slave from Virginia who led the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, Washington would become the most widely known and influential black leader in the nation after the passing of Frederick Douglass. Unlike Douglass, however, Washington publicly eschewed political action, although he fought behind the scenes against black disenfranchisement. In 1895, the year Douglass passed away, Washington made his famous statement at the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition supporting segregation and urging industrial education for African Americans. As he put it, ‘In all things
that are purely social, we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.’ His views were embraced by most Southern white leaders (and his programs funded by Northern white businessmen) since they did not pose a political threat to the established order. Nevertheless, while preaching social accommodation and rejecting calls for black political participation, Washington gave his backing to candidates through his ‘Tuskegee Machine,’ the name given to his considerable network of influence via his educational and business ventures. He privately financed several legal cases against electoral discrimination, in 1900 contesting a grandfather clause enacted in Louisiana, and in 1903 and 1904 funding the legal challenges Giles v. Hams and Giles v. Teasley against discriminatory voter registration practices in Alabama. The Supreme Court threw both Giles cases out on technicalities.10“

Ali, Omar H., In the Balance of Power (p. 105). Ohio University Press. Kindle Edition.

Hopefully your perspective will be one that is preserved through history.

It is almost as if third party movements are automatically a part of the two-party system. Which is scary when you think about it. Are we being used to do the work of the legislators? Since they know that they will have to compromise to get anything done.Or, if it were not for third party movements there would be no legislative efforts on behalf of the people.

WHO IS THE PROVERBIAL “THEY?”

Jackie Salit’s last two paragraphs in the afterword summarize the question I have been asking for years. Her statement suggests a lack of a proverbial “they”:

Ali documents the unlikely cross-racial and often cross-ideological coalitions that have appeared and reappeared over time with controversial and visionary black leaders Frederick Douglas, Walter Pattillo, W.E.B. Du Bois, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., and Lenora Fulani at the helm. There is historical precedent. But today’s political crisis demands more than just precedent. Today there is also a profound weakening of governing and political institutions, of parties and ideology and public trust. The consent of the governed is slipping away. While the stranglehold of party loyalty is at an apex, the public desire for political freedom, for choice, for mobility, and for development among ordinary Americans is spreading. New institutions based on new partnerships and ways of being must be built.

But today’s political crisis demands more than just precedent. Today there is also a profound weakening of governing and political institutions, of parties and ideology and public trust,”

Salit, Jacqueline, In the Balance of Power (p. 175). Ohio University Press. Kindle Edition.

WHO IS THE PROVERBIAL “THEY?”

I grew up at a time when “they” summarized the entire white race. That is how far removed we were from the power structure. As we became more involved, educated, etc. we understood that “they” was divided into two groups, but never was there a question that “they “stood for what we now know to have been Standard Oil, the Rockefellers, Carnegies Etc. In other words THE WORLD CAPITALISTS, not necessarily all whites.

On the plantation, the distinctions were quite clear. But after the abolishment, poor whites struggled to exercise their “at least we are not black” version of superiority that Jackie quoted Baldwin as having written.

I submit that there is no identifiable “THEY” at present. The diversity of the wealth has made it impossible to identify who benefits exactly from what specific policies. Instead of this making “strange bedfellows,” it makes for no bedfellows. Of course, the fallback privately owned federal reserve is the all-time “they.” But it has no identity.

Thus enters Trump. He identified the proverbial they and at the same time vilified that “they.” It is why those whites that voted for Obama voted for Trump. Obama gave them an easy contrast with the “they” that they despised, and subsequently blamed for their “bad luck” in life.

It is no surprise to me that there is evidence that quite a few of the terrorists (deliberately not in quotation marks) of January 6 were in serious financial trouble, i.e. bankruptcy, repossessions, etc. So the question becomes is there no longer a Proverbial They? Are we too divided for a Proverbial They? Has self-interest (diverse income sources) done away with party loyalty? Which is why Trump has no party loyalty. His policies (that count as far as this discussion goes) were transparently decided in favor of his selfish needs.

The influence of Tech Companies may have reduced the power of past “theys.” Could you imagine the proverbial “they” being a foreign power? Does the New World Order represent the confluence necessary to unite the global elite? Are they, the “they”? Is this why the country is in such a confused state?

IN OTHER WORDS, WHO IS IN CHARGE?

Sadie Moore Stewart is a 70 year old black lawyer and independent activist from Ohio.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Event
With Author Omar H. Ali
Sunday, February 21st
7pm ET
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Mike Marthaller

cathylstewart

Mike sent in a response to Caroline Donnola’s poem,
 Many Roads are Better than One.

Mike Marthaller

Several thoughts:
Be divided. Be conquered.

Do not “Judge” history by the standards of today.
In fact, do not “Judge” history; they too dealt with COMPLEX survival, social, cultural, regional, economic, religious, political issues.
As I look BACK I attempt to consider communicating just a few miles often took months.

Survival was not an abstract concept.

Our ancestors in the USA and Canada were involved in attempting to resolve what was arguably the greatest rapid mixing of cultures, religious concept, social, cultural differences in human history.  

They TOO faced the manipulations by those who would be Kings OR Queens.
Some who were in fact altruistic and some still as today only want power.

They faced then as today manipulative outside forces.

And WE then as today exerted our power over others.

Peace
Through RESPONSIBILITY.

Mike Marthaller is retired from the military, a peace activist, a City Councilmember from rural Washington, and active with Braver Angels.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Event
With Author Omar H. Ali
Sunday, February 21st
7pm ET
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Tiani Coleman

cathylstewart

From Enthusiastic, to Jaded, and Back Again, Rinse and Repeat

Tiani Coleman

The 2020 book The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save our Democracy, by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, hits close to home. It says a lot of what I’ve been trying to say for some time now, but it’s much more effective. 

Let me explain how I went from being a die-hard Republican insider in 2001; to in 2012, becoming an independent activist trying to change the system to break-up the dynamics that heavily favor parties and their insiders, so that all voters can have a real and meaningful voice. My change in perspective started when I began to grasp the injustice of parties being able to conduct themselves like private clubs, even though they hold a very crucial gatekeeper role in our public elections. 

As Chair of the Salt Lake County Republican Party (2003-2005), I ran up against members of my executive committee voting to remove “county and state delegates” from their elected delegate position.  At that time, Utah had primarily a caucus/convention system of nominating candidates for the general election ballot.  Delegates to both the county and state conventions, elected at their county precinct caucus, were free agents, not bound to vote for any candidate, but instead were elected as “representatives” with sole power to cast nominating votes at their respective conventions on any candidate for each state and federal public office (except president, where they only elected national delegates and electors).  Any candidate receiving at least 60% of the delegate vote became the party nominee for the general election ballot without facing a public primary at all.  Not only did all executive committee members and public officeholders (incumbents) already have automatic superdelegate status, but add to that, the power of the executive committee to remove elected delegates and replace them with appointed delegates.  That was a lot of power in the hands of just a few people!  These issues were further compounded by the fact that most general elections were not competitive; Republicans typically won most races overwhelmingly.  Hence, the voice of “the people” in our elections was heavily outweighed by the power of “the party.”  This could result in either the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of the minority, depending upon who held controlling power within the party.

In 2010, with that stewing in my mind, I managed the campaign of a college mentor who was the Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in one of the most conservative districts in the country.  In that race, qualifications, substance behind the issues and the character of the candidates made virtually no difference.  It was a lopsided district, and all that mattered was her opponent getting the partisan Republican base at caucus and convention — then the general election was in the bag.  (And it wasn’t just Republicans; Democrats benefitted from a similar super-majority in the city capital.) 

In 2012, I officially unaffiliated with any party, and began advocating for a change to the caucus/convention system.  I knew we  had to come up with something better than party primaries, though, because of the broader dynamics of not having competitive general elections. Unrepresentative election results especially ensued, given that most voters weren’t affiliated with a party, and thus had no say in closed primaries. Then their choices in the general election were limited and predetermined.  My most profound realization came when I considered, for the first time, that there was no reason we HAD to keep parties as gatekeepers for our public elections.  That’s not in the Constitution.  In fact, the Framers were anti party-system.

California had just passed a top-two primary system, wherein all candidates from all party preferences to no party preference were on the same primary ballot, and the top-two vote getters, regardless of party, moved on to the general election.  That was a neat idea! (But, a little limiting).  In some of our Republican conventions, we had utilized ranked choice voting, a type of instant run-off election where voters can rank their candidates in order of preference; and if no candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, an automatic series of run-offs ensues until someone wins with a majority.  What if we fused the idea of a combined primary, like California had, with the idea of ranked choice voting, to allow for more than two candidates to advance to the general election, or at least to ensure that those who did advance hadn’t simply squeaked by with a low plurality win due to vote-splitting?  That was the answer!

I was so excited about this new proposal for a combined primary utilizing ranked choice voting.  I began sharing it with knowledgeable and capable people.  I found a few good people who were supportive of the idea, and in early 2013, we set up a website to start drumming up support for a citizen ballot initiative.  However, ours was a big change that would not inherently favor the powers that be, and it would require a lot of supporters and a lot of resources to be successful. As we were just getting off the ground, some big money interests got involved and “took over” the electoral reform space in Utah. Their endeavor managed to succeed at adding a signature route to the primary ballot, such that party conventions were no longer the sole route. Theirs was a step, but not a complete solution, since it retained party primaries, with the Republican primary remaining closed to non-party members. 

A little while after my family moved to New Hampshire seven years ago, I got involved in re-instituting New Hampshire Independent Voters.  Our primary purpose is to decrease the power of special interests, including parties, and increase the power of “we the people,” with a special focus on expanding ballot access for all candidates, and voting access for all voters, including independent voters, to cast a real and meaningful vote.  We aren’t a party, and we aren’t directly about trying to help elect independent candidates; we’re about systemic reforms needed to give everyone an equal playing field.  

We’ve had a lot of people agree with our issues and “sign up,” but few have been actively engaged enough to donate significant amounts of time or resources.  We’ve also assisted already established organizational allies on things like money in politics, redistricting, and voting rights.  Since New Hampshire doesn’t allow for citizen initiatives, any electoral reforms have to pass the legislature.  In 2017, finding someone to sponsor a bill for a combined primary was met with resistance, but the idea of a bill to implement ranked choice voting was met with more enthusiasm.  So I’m now also leading an organization called New Hampshire Ranked Choice Voting (NHRCV).  We’re focused on educating about and advocating for ranked choice voting in NH.  We’re not focused on combining the primary (although I wholeheartedly still support that concept). NHRCV is having success in a non-partisan/cross partisan manner with people, volunteers and resources, thus far. 

So here’s the kicker. Guess what’s been happening in the last couple of months? We’ve had new people joining NHRCV,  people who haven’t been involved with the independent voter group or the RCV group before, holding up Gehl and Porter’s book, saying that they would be a lot more enthused about our efforts if we were supporting a “top 5” reform. I’ve had others who have been enthusiastically volunteering, say, “Wait, you mean we’re just supporting ranked choice voting without doing away with party primaries?  Well, how will that really change anything?” While I do think RCV reform alone will be a great improvement, I agree that a more fundamental change is sorely needed to truly transform our system to one that really works for “the people.” Oh, the irony of finding myself as the jaded one; the one setting aside the “ideal,” and making the case for working with what’s possible.

Indeed, Gehl and Porter are extremely welcome voices to the movement.  Their research and credibility brings vibrant clarity, with concrete examples, to these issues.  It looks like their work has the capacity to thrust the need for systemic change to the forefront, as they argue in mainstream terms and call upon us to open the market and innovate like we would in any other industry.  They call upon us to quit saying the system is broken; they expertly unveil how the system is working exactly how it’s meant to work, and that’s the problem: we need a new system! They lay out in great detail how “the political-industrial complex is a private industry within a public institution,” and that “reveals the root cause of the situation in which we find ourselves.” They then eloquently propose the solution: a “top 5” combined primary utilizing ranked choice voting in the general election.

If every well-intended, rational American reads Gehl and Porter’s book, combined with Gruber, Hardy and Kresky’s Touro Law Review article, “Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States,” it will be more than possible to bring about the needed systemic reforms that could do wonders for our representative, constitutional Democracy.

Tiani Xochitl Coleman is a mother of five, a graduate of Cornell Law School, and President of New Hampshire Independent Voters and New Hampshire Ranked Choice Voting.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 18th
7pm ET
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Ben Walton looks at Chapter 5

cathylstewart
Ben Walton

The new rules of the game that Gehl and Porter are advocating for in The Politics Industry are simple:

  • Level the playing field by using top-five voting or RCV to allow healthier competition, and allow your citizens to vote on who they favor rather than having to pick from a bucket.

  • Create better competition and force the candidates and representatives to become more accountable to the citizens which in turn creates a better government.

  • Finely restructure the way we think about our legislative branch. Long ago, our nation decided it was reasonable for the Senate and Congress to create their own rules. Now that we have decades of data to see those rules at work, it’s become apparent that the structure of these two bodies is to repeal and replace rather than create then improve. We need to change this idealism and create a non-partisan commission to restructure and rewrite the rules of our legislative body.

I see sports and politics as one and the same. The idea of two teams in competition against one another, both with the same goal, the desire to win, and both in the same league. We have dedicated networks that offer different opinions, report highlights for the day and analysis of each representative or athlete on what they did and why. This means that as spectators we pick and choose who we support, the teams that we follow. We listen to what the players and coaches have to say and believe them. Politics has become just a game and updating/rule changing is needed. We need better and more fair competition with the opportunity for our representatives to work together and become more accountable to constituents.

We can do it but we have to start now.

Ben Walton is the Head of Program Development for The People. Prior to working for The People, Ben served as the High School and College Coordinator for Voters Not Politicians. Ben received his BA in Political Science from Aquinas College in 2018

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 18th
7pm ET
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Jessie Fields

cathylstewart

Some Thoughts Beyond The Politics Industry

I very much agree with the authors of The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy, Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, that the prescription for innovation is “to change the machinery of politics – to change the rules that govern elections and legislating.”

And I also wish, as I believe Katherine Gehl does as well, for us to reach beyond reform to transformation of the laws, rules and operations of the political process.

We as a country are in the midst of tremendous social upheaval, a maelstrom moment described by Ta-Nehisi Coates in his leading essay in the September issue of Vanity Fair as “The Great Fire.” He writes not only of “the fire,” the ongoing horror of racism and its inhumanity and brutality but also of its glaring public exposure and the uprising against it, “the light.”

A thousand Eric Garners will be tolerated, so long as they are strangled to death in the shadows of the American carceral system, the most sprawling gulag known to man.”

Breonna Taylor is on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine because she was killed by police. It became publicly known about three months after her death that she was killed while lying in her bed in Louisville, Kentucky after the police stormed into her apartment. If Breonna Taylor were alive she would not be on the cover of Vanity Fair. She was an ordinary, beautiful, vibrant young Black woman with high aspirations for her future. All wiped out in a storm of bullets. Breonna Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, shares some of her daughter’s life story in the magazine. A piercing question before her family and all the families who have lost loved ones to racist violence, is how is it the continued fate of our people to be called upon to lead in the face of such trauma and pain and how have so many sustained the courage to do so. We as a people, all the American people, need to build togetherness and we have a great deal to learn from these examples of personal courage.

We do need “innovation that is transformative as” the book, The Politics Industry, calls for and to me that transformation has to include transforming the structural racism, segregation, the anti-poor and anti-people of color practices that are inherent in the policies set by the current established political processes. We have to dismantle the top down control, and the ways “we the people” are polarized into warring camps. A cultural transformation is also necessary, one that engages all of us in the process of collective human development and recreating our country.

I believe that as independents and as human beings of any color we ought to always support and speak out for social justice and actively build a multiracial political movement that is deeply connected to the long struggles of people of color in America to remake our democracy to be inclusive of all Americans. We continue on that journey.

Dr. Jessie Fields is a physician practicing in Harlem, and a Board member at Independent Voting and Open Primaries.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 4th
7pm EST
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Al Bell

cathylstewart

Led by Independents, not parties,

we have a path to follow in reclaiming our governance.

Al Bell

It is in your best interest to read this book because the two major political parties believe they own your vote. They are dead wrong. The revolution to get your vote back is underway. Read this book and help get our votes exactly where they belong: with each voter. The secret is to change the election systems to get leaders who believe that. It is none too soon.

Our intentionally dysfunctional party-centric governance is sabotaging the Great American Experiment, first by simply not delivering responsive solutions and secondly by discrediting our entire American enterprise. We desperately need to replace most members of Congress with men and women who actually want to govern instead of wielding partisan wedges so they can look busy while accomplishing very little. Finding those new leaders is impossible at the scale necessary as long as the party duopoly controls the process—and as long as that process rewards dysfunction. This book is written for those who care enough to find those leaders.

The insights reflected here are built on the shoulders of a great many perceptive political leaders going back decades who understood that the party duopoly was just not responsive to our leadership needs. While not named, their presence haunts these pages and lends to them a credibility the authors bring to life.

We speak endlessly of the divisiveness that dominates the public square these days. Differences of opinion and belief are endemic to our society; that is not the problem. Denying their existence and silencing dissenting voices are the killing forces. Differences are both essential and unavoidable. What is optional is whether we will operate a political system dedicated to honestly bring different priorities and visions to workable resolution. Currently, the answer is “no.” We need “yes.”

The authors make a powerful case that our “broken” political system is actually working exactly as intended. It desperately needs to be broken, exactly opposite the typical phrasing we hear. That clarity in perspective drives their ideas about how we can unravel the current governance debacle.

The authors approach “breaking the system” with a business competition and economics perspective. This mentality underpins their analysis as well as their prescriptions. It opens up some intriguing practical options.

The authors document what some of these options look like; they also describe changes in the election process and the practice of legislating that can once again serve us. They offer a coherent basis for evaluating different versions of their preferred election system that are already providing experience—or soon will be.

The current wave of experiments provides insights on how we can change legislators’ behavior by appealing to a different breed of politicians entirely—and enabling them to behave differently when elected. Congressional ineptitude does not have to be permanent.

All members of Congress will be replaced eventually. Why not evolve an electoral system that enables members who are willing to risk excellence, expose themselves to understanding their constituencies, and honor the long view? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to feel regret that someone is stepping down instead of relief?

The authors describe how the business concept of competition can be adapted to the distinctive arena of governance to stimulate excellence and achievement rather than divisiveness, mediocrity, blatant waste, and failure. They present their arguments by subjecting the non-performance of our legislators to a disciplined examination that contrasts sharply with the party duopoly perspective we have come to view as “normal.” In fact, it is congenitally abnormal, as they document.

There is much more work to be done in “breaking” the system that has mutated into a leadership miasma. One is to thoughtfully test the results and effectiveness of the emerging models of electoral reforms, such as totally open primary elections, top two/three/four/five elections, approval voting, ranked choice voting, and variations on these themes. Objective review, achieved by a broadly representative mix of analysts, will be needed to: 1) properly assess what does and does not work best and why, and 2) generate refinements that will improve performance. We have an unprecedented opportunity to realistically fine-tune our best approaches to getting the leadership we need.

The experiments are now underway. They come, not from the parties, but rather from the world of Independent Voters. The political punditry, news media, and party autocracies have consistently failed to understand why almost half of registered voters in the U.S. declare themselves independent of the parties, who these Americans really are, what motivates them to renounce party rigidity, what we can learn from these patriots, and why it matters.

Some of the most informed commentators on our party-induced malaise still do not grasp why Independent Voters are key to breaking the party stranglehold on our governance mechanisms. Yet, that sector of the political universe is generating the breakthrough experiments from which we now have the opportunity to learn so much. We learn here what some of those experiments are. We need to know even more about the Independent Voting movement that promotes a rebirth of the Great American Experiment by fostering effective voting. This book is a superb “launch point” for exploring the people and the organizations waging this battle for years and that are now getting real traction!

I end with one personal entreaty: let humility prevail in this endeavor. The enemy of humility is arrogance, with which our political arena overflows. The opposite of confidence and capability is not uncertainty and incapacity; it is arrogance. That’s one thing we don’t need as we seek to reinvigorate the Great American Experiment. Perhaps, in due course, even the parties will come to grasp that reality.

Al Bell lives in Peoria, AZ and is an activist with Independent Voters for Arizona. Al served on Independent Voting’s Eyes on 2020 National Cabinet, working to get the 2020 presidential primaries open to independents across the country.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 4th
7pm EST
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Paige Bartkowiak

cathylstewart

American politics is failing us:

A Look at Chapter Three in The Politics Industry

Paige Bartkowiak

As we are all gearing up for one of the most anticipated elections this fall, Gehl & Porter’s book is an important reminder as to how we got here and why this election will likely fail to solve any of the issues brought up in the book, regardless of who is elected. Gehl and Porter reiterate throughout the book that the two parties will not give up their power and welcome a third party into the arena. The people of our country must come together to determine the desired outcomes of our political system and act to make sure our political system provides those. Regardless of political affiliation it must be seen as patriotic, not partisan, to want better for our country and to demand more from our elected officials. Chapter three provides data for where we are and sets the stage for what needs to be done.

The consequences of failing competitiveness Gehl and Porter outlined in chapter three all resonated with me because I have personally experienced all of them within the past month. We are living in a house (America) with countless cracks, Gehl and Porter discuss a few of the major ones. There is a lack of problem solving with our elected officials, no one seems to want to take accountability and work together to create solutions. There is no attention to preventative care; leaving our politicians to only deal with what is absolutely minimally required of them, instead of looking out for the long term health of our country. Most shockingly, the country is deeply divided. I was recently harassed while getting my mail by a political parade driving down my road. These individuals saw me as an enemy, a threat to their existence and as less of a person and decided they would yell obscenities at me from their megaphone. I do not believe our divide will be healed with electing the right person or initiating the right policy. Rather, this divide will take years of restorative justice, working together and building a shared country together. I do not think anyone reading Gehl and Porter’s book would disagree with the cracks in our home; how we got these cracks may be open for debate, but we have come to understand as a country we are in need of some repairs.

I value the section in chapter three discussing the consequences of the U.S.’s failing political system, as many of these topics have unfortunately been politicized; yet they are facts, rooted in data. Our country was seated at the top of many standards for a period in time, but without maintaining those gains we have fallen behind other countries. It is not unpatriotic to say we are not the best, and we can improve. In fact, I believe working on our country should be seen as one of the most patriotic things a person can do. We must make this declaration because we have ranked 26th in the world for overall social progress. Government must provide shared prosperity for its citizens and the current system of American politics is failing to do so. An interesting point to me was that we’re behind the country of Ghana in the rankings of safety; a country I called home four years ago.

Prior to reading Gehl and Porter’s previous paper and this book I did not understand how competitiveness was defined. It is not simply more candidates running for office. Instead, it is creating a shared prosperity for people and businesses which is desired and sustainable. Our country currently fits the definition of failing to be competitive. We have declining labor force participation, the private sector is strong while the public sector is weak, and economic gains are centered at the top of the income distribution.

Our country came to assume our future prosperity was assured, but over the past few decades we have realized it’s not. Like Democracy and relationships our prosperity is a living thing that needs attention, dedication and continued inputs to improve and not stay stagnant. Without an investment, we land where we are today; falling behind. Our political process’s foundation is cracking and we must work to repair the foundation while we still can salvage it.

One of the important, yet slightly overlooked sections in Gehl and Porter’s chapter three is around the lack of accountability elected officials have while in office. Elected officials should be accountable to their constituents; however, this is not how our political system operates today. Gehl and Porter discuss how the lack of accountability in part is due to the duopology between the Democrats and Republicans. It was striking to me how nearly 50% of Americans desire a third party; however, we have failed to see one emerge. Again, our political system is not responding to the needs of the people. Instead, the two parties rig our system to make it impossible for a third party to emerge. Thus, they use the political process to keep themselves in power. This chapter made the case for a multi-party system even more attractive to me as a consumer.

Chapter three discusses what Gehl and Porter believe are the five outcomes our Democracy must deliver: solutions, action, support from a broad base, balance short & long term needs and show fidelity to the Constitution. I personally favor a system where the people of our country come together to discuss the desired outcomes as opposed to politicians, business elites and the ‘experts’ deciding. While I recognize that some of Gehl and Porter’s five may overlap with the people’s I believe there would be more based on the lived experiences of more people contributing. As a citizen I pay into a system of politics which should work to improve my life, my community and my world. I am a dissatisfied consumer of the American Political System and I am actively working to change that system.

I fiercely agree with the claim that our political system is not broken, it is functioning exactly how the parties, political influences, monied interests, etc. are wanting it to work. A fundamental issue with our system is that it is catering to these interests and not the interests of the general public. Gehl and Porter outline the problems we are now seeing due to a failure of competition in the political arena. As Gehl and Porter conclude this chapter the promise of it being the darkest in the book is realized; however, it is important to understand what is truly broken, fully assessing the situation, before jumping in to salvage it. So while this chapter may be difficult to read it is nevertheless necessary to understand where we are and where we can go from here.

Paige Bartkowiak is the Head of National Development for The People. Prior to working for The People, Paige was the Major Fundraising Event Coordinator for Voters Not Politicians, a fundraiser for Senator Debbie Stabenow and a field organizer for Bryan Mielke.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 4th
7pm ET
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Jennifer Bullock

cathylstewart
June 2, 2000 Pennsylvania primary elections. Jennifer Bullock in front of her polling location…locked out and banned from voting. Photo by Stephen Bouikidis

I loved reading The Politics Industry. I am on my second go around now! Thank you so much for your advocacy and articulation of the need for significant system reforms.

I am a long-time activist in the independent movement challenging the two-party stranglehold on our elections. Our group, Independent Pennsylvanians, is committed to the rights of independents to fully participate in our elections. I so much support your recommended reforms that would infuse needed innovation, let alone basic fairness and functionality to our so-called democratic process.

I am also a psychotherapist committed to helping people develop and grow into who they are becoming. I am thinking about how your signature reform of non-partisan top 5 first round/RCV second round of elections could be a way to support our political process to grow, develop, become.

I wonder about how your reform recommendation can be operationalized and adopted for on-the-ground advocacy and strategy. I question if development of the electorate is needed simultaneous to advocating for significant reforms such as top five nonpartisan primary/RCV. Some of our activists are concerned, for example, that pushing any reforms other than opening the primaries to nonpartisans will “go too far”. Of course, opening closed primaries alone does not go far enough, but do we, as voters and activists, need to be able/willing to stretch and have vision for what more we can reach for?

Jennifer Bullock is the Director of Independent Pennsylvanians, which is a proud founding member of the PA Open Primaries Coalition. She is a social therapist practicing in Philadelphia.

***

Politics for the People Zoom Call
With Author Katherine Gehl
Sunday, October 4th
7pm EST
Click here to RSVP!

***

Continue Reading

Reader’s Forum — Catana Barnes & Jessie Fields

cathylstewart

Catana Barnes

The Overweight Brain by Lois Holzman is the best book I have read in a very long time! I found what I experienced by reading the book to be very freeing. I related with chapter 5 the most because I was labeled difficult and oppositional in school. The fact of the matter was that I was very bored and the school couldn’t figure out what to do with me. More interestingly is the fact that I was later diagnosed by a psychologist as suffering from “Life Adjustment Disorder.” Holzman spoke about this on page 84,

The American Psychological Association’s Glossary of Psychological Terms defines behavior as “the actions by which an organism adjusts to its environment,”

and

Ignoring this wondrous human capacity, psychology and education wind up with “adjustment” being the basis for how we relate in the key evaluative measure—and that, of course, includes consequences for not adjusting—ergo, “behavioral problems.“

The second part that stood out to me was Chapter 8, “We Can’t Know, but We Can Grow.” I related to chapter 8 because of my activities involving the independent movement. And, through my work with people to build the independent movement in my state and in my local community, I have found it to be difficult, at times, to help people interact with the political system in a developmental way. I found what Holzman said on page 169 and 170 to be very helpful as she talks about play and how we develop from play,

Play is in non-knowing growing (playing and performing “a head taller“). Play as in a dance between imagination and rules (as Vygotsky described it). Play as in creating your conversations instead of merely having the ones you know how to have. And, Most importantly, play as an improvisational way you can be with people other than very little children and, thereby, create new possibilities for growth throughout a lifetime.“

The Overweight Brain is my new resource for those moments when I feel stuck in an activity. I look forward to exploring the unknown and unknowable. I recommend this book to everyone!

Catana Barnes is the founder and President of Independent Voters of Nevada.

Dr. Jessie Fields

I find the entire book to be deeply political, universal and therapeutic. One can see our work as independent activists in every line. Such as these,

Holding fast to the belief that the happenings of our lives are knowable can get us into deep trouble. (So to can believing that what will happen in politics and world events is knowable by the experts, which we are witness to each day). We can be unprepared, both materially and emotionally, if things seem to take a sudden turn because we “thought we knew for sure” how they’d go. Accepting – better yet, embracing – unknowability helps us be more, not less, prepared. More prepared to participate in what’s transpiring and give some direction to it. More prepared to create with others what will emerge from the process. More prepared to improvise. More prepared to grow.“

Jenn Bullock and Jessie Fields petitioning in Philadelphia.

The two party system is fundamentally based on and perpetuates a knowing ideology of top down control, for example the focus on knowing which candidate’s health plan is better, as opposed to the American people transforming the entire process of politics and health. 

Lois Holzman illustrates in detail the detrimental roles that knowing plays in our culture. I found it very interesting to note the ways psychology and two party control function side by side and hold each other up. In both we see the obsession with knowing, measuring and dividing. In both there is constant polling. The parties have endless ways of dividing the American people as psychology has endless categorization. How do we break out of such straight jackets? The Overweight Brain is a primer on how to grow and lead. Non knowing growing, is the call to action of the book.

What’s needed to grow, to become, to transform our culture, politics and institutions, to make a better world are ways for human beings to exercise our creative power…We see creativity as a social phenomenon, a relational process, and one of the most important ways human beings give expression to our connection with each other...”

I see the independent movement to transform American democracy as a non-knowing growing process that touches all aspects of American life and history. I’m looking forward to our conversation with Lois Holzman as part of that process of becoming. 

Dr. Jessie Fields is a physician practicing in Harlem, and a Board member at Independent Voting and Open Primaries.

***

Politics for the People

Conference Call With Author

Dr. Lois Holzman

Sunday, December 8th

7pm EST

Call in number: 605-313-5156

Passcode: 767775#

***

The Overweight Brain

How our obsession with knowing keeps us from getting smart enough to make a better world

Continue Reading