Another Nonpartisan Manifesto

[Note: This manifesto, the first ever written for the College Nonpartisans, was penned by our then-Treasurer, Timothy Hemphill in April 2003. It is presented here in revised form because it clearly presents the similarities between the two major political parties and monopolistic corporatism. -- Jeremy Young]

THE PROBLEMS: Malaise, disillusionment, apathy, exclusion, no choice.

THE CAUSES: exclusionary party politics, in-built two-party system, anti-competitive/monopolistic political practices.

We, thinkers of wide and profound thoughts, have a solution. We do not know the answers to all problems, nor do we pretend to always know the right answer to all political and economic problems. We do know, however, how to find these answers, and how to create and protect a good, just, and lasting peace.

We recognize that the world is a constantly changing, dynamic, chaotic system. We recognize that political and economic structures must and should change along with the world they govern, even while explicating core moral and ethical principles. We believe that the best way for government to foster and protect life and liberty is to be flexible and honest. This calls for political structures that allow for and respect alternative viewpoints in the civic discussion.

A civic forum that allows for radicalism, challenge, and change is a prerequisite to a strong, robust society. Over time, institutions are smothered by thick layers of dogma. Core principles and visionary movements are covered and obscured by the passage of time and the miscalculation of history. We believe that for a political system to be truly effective and efficient, it must constantly challenge itself, it must be under constant attack, it must listen to its critics and skeptics. To solve the problems civil society is confronted with requires activity, forethought, and vision. It is that vision, that overarching review and renewal of society, that we seek to provide.

We believe that a strong civic community, unperturbed by perceived obligations to powerful financial or ideological interests, is essential to ensuring that government does its job and nothing else. Only strong-willed and independent politicians have the gumption to resist powerful special interests, to resist the temptations of bribery and political back-scratching, to resist corruption. Only independent politicians have the force-of-will and courage to go against the tide, to oppose inflexible, dogmatic philosophies. Only independent politicians have the ability to keep the government’s excesses in check. Only independent politicians have the foresight and force of vision to cut through years of political accumulations to the heart of things. In other words, only independent politicians can truly lead.

When a modern politician “leads,” he is really the follower; he is the one being led. He is being led by the “platforms” and blind policy traditions that characterize the party system of government. He is not being led by “the people,” or by his own principles, or even entirely by self-interest. He is being led by the Party, an impersonal, amoral, abstract entity that exists only to survive. It feeds on ideology and dogma. It has no respect for humans or other living things, for liberty or for justice. The Party’s natural tendency is monopolistic, parasitic and expansionary. It is a perversion of the perfect Darwinian creature, blindly seeking the death of all creatures that do not directly serve to further its own existence.

When it comes to the slight, limited forms of “radicalism” allowed in the current political system, what might otherwise be potent political might is channeled into tightly controlled, limited, truncated channels. Radical thoughts are only allowed if they happen to fall into the simplistic dualistic universe of political thought the parties have propagated. These false dichotomies and one-dimensional constructs are more destructive than many people realize. So, one is either “for” or “against” affirmative action; there is no flexibility. There is no room to be for one form of affirmative action but against another. Choice and intelligent proposals are eliminated and ignored. The contributions of many innovative and reasoned thinkers are discarded; the contributions of large financial entities, however, are given high priority. Other nations’ and cultures' policies must be forced through this narrow ideological censorship. New ideas are integrated into political life only grudgingly. Nothing can be allowed to challenge the parties’ polarized, limited world.

This is not to say that parties are entirely evil, nor that all politicians that are members of parties are necessarily corrupt, ineffective, weak-willed, or blindly beholden to their party or its traditions. Too, there can be great variety in parties. There are a few common arguments justifying the existence and extent of the party system, and some of these arguments are compelling enough to support the existence of parties. None of them is compelling enough to support extensive government control, regulation, and restriction of parties, however.

Ostensibly, the goal of democratic government is unanimity in legislation, policy, and action. Since this is in practice nearly impossible, we make do with notions of levels of consensus- plurality, and various degrees of majority. We require higher levels of majority for what we consider to be the most important and major decisions, such as amendments to our Constitution. An argument raised in favor of a restrictive, simple party system is that it allows for and helps ensure majority rule, instead of rule of pluralities or coalitions of minorities. In other words, with only two parties it is supposedly easy to elect a president or other politician with over fifty percent of the vote. Other types of political decisions are made with a similar "consensus" as compared to a multi-party system; for example, a legislative committee might be composed of four Democrats and five Republicans, ensuring that whichever viewpoint eventually wins out, at least four out of nine people will support it (in general).

The problems with this argument are manifold. The first and foremost is that, in the opinion of the Nonpartisans, the need for this "consensus" does not justify government intervention. Although unanimity is the goal, consensus should be accomplished by debate, compromise and leadership- not government fiat.

Secondly, our notions of plurality and majority supposedly manage and ensure consensus- a nine-person board requires five votes to pass an ordinance whatever the political composition of the board members. The "consensus" supposedly created and enforced by a party system is only a veneer, an illusion, that serves to mask over and ignore alternative viewpoints and the views of political minorities. When there are only two or three major parties, the dominant views of each party are often the only views ever heard in the public debate; or, rather, the only views ever seriously considered. Given our rights of freedom of speech and of the press, a great many views are advocated- but since most of them have no political representative, they are generally ignored in the thinking of important decision-makers. Political minorities are forced to choose the lesser of evils as their representative in government- often, the lesser of a very small number of evils.

A serious flaw with the arguments for a government-sanctioned party system on consensus grounds is that, even with the party system, consensus is often not reached. Bill Clinton was elected with less than fifty percent of the vote- twice. Even when majorities are reached in the modern political climate, they are very often bare majorities. In Congress, majorities are now preserved only through a handful of votes, meaning that "consensus" often means only fifty-one percent of the vote. Is this somehow superior to a party-less or multi-party system?

Another primary argument in support of parties is that they serve a public good in ensuring "stability." But what is stability? Stability in politics really is concentration of control and power into a few hands, whether elected or not. The people elect their representatives, who appoint or vote amongst themselves for their political leaders (for example, the chairman of the Democratic and Republican National Committees). Because the people cannot choose people outside of the parties, they are forced to choose from among those who the party heads decide are "loyal" or politically viable- who then appoint or elect the party heads! The result is that the same types of people, sometimes even the same individuals, control the political climate for years and years. Their stale ideologies, which may have once been relevant and constructive, are now out-of-date and obsolete. Yet these men (and rarely women) stifle new modes of thought, or even old ones that they are opposed to, by their very presence. Party hacks crowd out independent and independent-minded politicians. In other words, stability equals stagnation. Dynamism, one of the core principles that democracy is based on, is killed by "stability."

There are numerous direct effects this monarchy-like succession and pseudo-nepotism has on our society. One is that it causes corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption- which is the same thing. The quick quid pro quo is rewarded by appointments to be Secretary of Defense or the candidacy for County Comptroller. Men who are guilty of direct, real corruption are given leadership positions because the Party provides for all.

And what happens when none of the dominant party ideologies mesh with yours? Some would say that is your problem, and it is- but what if none of the major parties match up with the majority of people? A majority of Americans support medical marijuana laws, and a sizable portion of the population supports decriminalization of marijuana. Yet, politicians from both major parties still continue to suppress such legislation, even when passed by voter referendum. Particularly egregious examples of this suppression is Attorney General Ashcroft's attack of California and Oregon state law allowing medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide, both passed by voter referendum. Whatever you believe about these laws, you cannot deny that a majority of people in those jurisdictions want them on the books; and even if you believe that Ashcroft's actions were right and just and within his governmental authority, you must admit to the power that Ashcroft has to deny the will of the people- an unelected official (who had previously lost an election to a dead man), appointed by a politician who couldn't even get a plurality of the popular vote and who lost the electoral vote in Oregon and California.

We, the Nonpartisans, want to return politics to a personal level (and to “the people”). We are fed up with choosing the lesser of two evils. We are fed up with small men controlling our destiny. We want to be able to choose someone we truly believe in. We want to elect fiery supporters of liberty and justice, whose visions extend past the next election and whose values and beliefs are clear, compelling and powerful. We want our votes to choose a champion, a person of intensity and independence, a person who has the courage and honesty to FIGHT for us, to FIGHT for what is worth FIGHTING for.

The current political system is betrothed to the Parties, to those vampiric beasts, and we’ve had enough. We want a divorce! We want politicians betrothed only to themselves and their constituents. We want free and independent politicians, expressing the will of the people, not the Party’s will to life!

THUS: We exist in part to weaken and destroy the entrenched, inflexible, often corrupt party system. The Parties have ruled for too long.
Such monstrous creatures have no place in a good and just political system. While we think that people can and should be able to organize themselves freely to achieve their political goals, this is not what the party system allows for. The formal party system exists for no reason except existence itself. The Democrats and Republicans have granted themselves a political monopoly, which brings with it all the problems of a business monopoly. Political “stability,” i.e. stagnation, is achieved, but at a high cost. There is no incentive to innovate, no incentive to change and grow and adapt to the political, social, and economic realities that confront us all. A business monopoly creates inefficiency, and most importantly it prevents the creation of new and better products. The party system is the politics of the pack- the all-powerful, pervasive pack.

We want state sponsorship of any party to be eliminated. While our political inclinations range from libertarian to conservative to communist, we the Nonpartisans all agree that the government should not prop up the current parties while blocking, restricting and marginalizing alternatives. We advocate this as a general principle, coupled with a set of specific policy, and polity, changes that we believe will result in greater honesty, justice and respect for freedom.

--Timothy Hemphill