real independent

Just what does being an Independent mean?

Being an Independent and, better yet, running for public office as one means adopting a basic platform:

Removing the current (and any) political parties from control of government functions and power.

Such an Independent can -- and should be expected to -- run on all sorts of other issues which are important to the constituents of the district or state in which they run. But at a base level, removal of parties from controlling the brass ring of power inside of government must be front and center. How can an Independent achieve that?

Let's say our Independent has run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. On Day 1 in office, he or she and other similar Independents must work to change the rules of the chamber. The U.S. Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the authority to set parliamentary rules for themselves. What party has done has created a brass ring of total control in each body based on which party collects a numerical majority in the last election. That corruption of the body's rules must be dismantled immediately. How?

Remove from the rules all references and authorities to leadership positions.

Today, majority and minority leaders control all matters, from committee assignments (which are very important to representatives and their constituents) to directing legislation to committee for mark-up and to the floor for a final vote. That was originally done in the early Congresses by majority vote of all members. There were no leadership positions until 1925.

Reduce the Speaker to its original ornamental role.

Since the House Speaker position is mentioned in the Constitution, an amendment would be required to ban it. But members are empowered to change the Speaker's powers merely by changing chamber rules. The other role specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate President pro Tem, has always remained essentially powerless. But Senate rules must be written to ensure that remains the same.

After those changes are made to chamber rules, then our Independent legislators must work on changing laws nationwide that have helped parties further corrupt the system. For instance:

Caucus with other Independents on legislation banning closed primaries and partisan gerrymandering nationwide.

This might take a day or two at most. Passing such a bill would foreclose the front end of party corruption regarding the grabbing of the brass ring of total control of government power. No more small minorities of the electorate narrowing candidate choices to two for the rest of us. Democrats currently constitute about 25-30% of the electorate; Republicans about 20%. Why should we allow two minorities of the population to limit our choices in closed primaries? And as for gerrymandering: No more partisans seeking voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Ban them both.

Next, each Independent begins work for his or her constituents ... and the American people.

There to represent the constituents of his or her district rather than the agenda and policy matrix of a political party, Independent representatives then seek out like-minded members on an individual issue, collaborate, and compromise (if necessary), and ultimately craft consensus legislation. That is the kind of post-election coalition-building the founders envisioned. On a completely different issue, a majority coalition that might form would undoubtedly look very different. That's the point.

Once we elect Independents as described above, no candidate for office will ever be able to run on "Let's fire Nancy Pelosi!" or "Give us the majority so that YOU get your way with policy." No doubt, those are tempting goals for some folks among us; but they are not how this government was structured to work. Concentrations of power were anathema to the founders (see The founders and party page above). No candidate would ever be able to run on their tribe grabbing control of a chamber to the exclusion of any representatives in the other tribe.

What does that mean for campaigns? Magically, candidates will run on issues that are important to their constituents and the nation as a whole, not the packaged policy positions of a party (of which there are just TWO). Voters in a district or state will find the candidate closest to their views and send them off to negotiate with any other rep.

And get things done. For instance, universal background checks (UBC) on firearms sales. Well over 90% of Americans support that (have for decades), but somehow it hasn't become law. Why not? Because when you have a two-choice rigging of the system in which you have to choose between two packages of policies (many of which you may disagree with), when you have two tribes who consistently demonize (lie about) the other tribe, the nation as a whole (a standard bell curve with respect to choosing between these two parties) tends to break down fairly evenly between Ds and Rs. And currently the Rs are owned by the National Rifle Association.

Since under the new rules and laws discussed above, Independents will have to collaborate with any other rep, they will undoubtedly tackle each issue individually. UBC is one of them. My guess is that UBC (and probably red flag laws, also highly supported) would pass Congress in the first few weeks of the session.

The path to getting to such a healthy representative democracy is election of Independents committed to these changes.

The difference between ...

... an independent and a capital-I Independent is like night and day. Today, we have all sorts of independents in the political sphere. But they are often folks uninspired and frustrated by the two existing parties because they don't go far enough left or right. If the two parties did move in those directions, independents often would sign up. But capital-I Independents are unique in that they are not aligned with any party. And never will be. In fact, the point of being an Independent is to lead the effort to remove political parties from control of government power and functions.

Excerpt from the author's book,The Problem is Party

I know that some of you might not be interested in what the founders did or said. Some, like Elie Mystal (justice correspondent for “The Nation”), think the Constitution is “kind of trash,” “written by slavers and colonists.”

Granted, the founders were imperfect on a colossal scale, especially when compared to today’s norms and perspectives. They promoted a voting system that excluded all but white male landowners and, most egregious, many of them owned other human beings.

But—yes but. How can there be a “but” after laying bare the sin of slaveowning? Because the founders, despite their personal shortcomings, kneaded into the Constitution many principles revered today as fundamental to any democracy. It would be an epic failure to ignore them, especially because some of those principles form the rationale for restraining party.

One of those principles was the first of its kind in the history of founding documents —an amendment process written into the document. An amendment process. You know, to change it going forward.

Does that suggest that maybe the founders weren’t totally sold on their own creation? That it suggests humility on the part of the founders?

Don’t know, but at the very least, it confirms what some of the founders openly expressed at the time this government began: That when society changes, so should its norms, laws, and even its constitution.