» Politics and other things

More Voters Turn to Independent Media for Content They Can Trust

(18 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by Jacob Patterson
  • Latest reply from Jacob Patterson

  1. My independent online weekly radio program that I host from my bedroom here in Portland, Filter Free Radio, has been featured in a new article this week from the IVN Network (Independent Voter Network) on the status and future of independent media and alternative third party candidates in 2016.

    I will be talking about the article, playing my full interview with IVN, and will take your thoughts and calls on this coming FFR Monday 3/10. For now here is the article:

    "More Voters Turn to Independent Media for Content They Can Trust" by Logan Brown -

    Posted on March 5, 2014 - 04:46 PM #
  2. missing_kskd

    While I agree with the sentiment, the idea that there are viable third parties in line for POTUS is just a spoiler.

    Realistically, the path to change is through the parties we have, and by building some support from the ground up.

    Establishing a third party with clout may not be possible, and if it even is, will take a very long time.

    What can happen, and we've seen it play out a number of times, is to instead dominate one of the two parties and take it in a favorable direction.

    The religious right is a good example of this. Progressive Democrats also want to do this, right along with the Tea Party. Of the two, the Tea Party actually gets it, which amazes me to no end.

    Tea Party people are serious and are taking seats at all levels, building strength needed to check the party establishment, and have been largely successful over a fairly short period of time. Rebranding the GOP base has meant an opportunity to maximize the impact of the movement, taking the party more right and liberitarian in social and economic terms.

    Progressives are working at this with some success too, but they really need to better focus on both the short and long game. "Third Way" Democrats are the establishment, similar to moderate Republicans. The clash between "Third Way" and Progressives has been going on for some time, and Howard Dean really started things moving for Progressives, only to be taken off the stage before too much momentum built up.

    Independent media plays a significant role in these things. One difference between the Tea Party and it's influence on the GOP and Progressives and their influence on the Democrats is the big business / corporate alignment with Tea Partiers is much more favorable than it is with Progressives.

    We see traditional media addressing the Tea Party agenda regularly, and we see money doing the same. Progressive ideas are somewhat toxic to both, making the idea of real reform harder, because it requires more of a consensus and self-funding. Harder to build an effective machine, in other words.

    Bottom line is bending one party toward reform is a whole lot more plausible, possible, practical than establishing a third party will ever be.

    Now, many of us believe campaign reform is generally the solution. I would agree, but for this little problem:

    What party would come to power only to change the rules that got it there? The answer really isn't. Risks are high, as very significant third party activity tends to be a spoiler, and where there is a spoiler, we lose economically, due to the corporate majority looking to promote oligarchy. "Third Way" Democrats are the majority, and they align fairly well with moderate Republicans, and some of the Tea Party.

    Cracking that nut will require bending one party to an agenda much better aligned with ordinary people, then working to reform once the power is secure. A task like that is on the order of generations.

    Posted on March 5, 2014 - 07:22 PM #
  3. Vitalogy

    Anyone casting a vote for a non-viable candidate (3rd party) is automatically casting a vote against themselves.

    We saw this in action with the 2000 election. All those Nader voters must have loved the fact Bush was selected as president rather than Gore.

    Those that have the urge to vote 3rd party should look up the definition of being shrewd.

    Posted on March 5, 2014 - 08:10 PM #
  4. missing_kskd

    Exactly. Other parties can make a lot of sense at lower and more local levels of Government. And it's there we can build coalitions, movements, alliances, groups to do lots of things to influence and take over parties.

    Movement politics is where the real action is in the US. We don't have a Parliament. Because of that, we need to work differently than people would like.

    Look at the Pirate Party, who is really about intellectual property, privacy, digital rights, etc... They got seats in Parliamentary governments, and are having their influence. Seems pretty great, or maybe better, until you realize their influence is not too different from, say a voting bloc within one of our parties.

    I think the biggest advantage they have over us, is the government more officially recognizes and structures reformers and how they can move to action. But, we have the advantage of the First Amendment, which does recognize expression as a basic human right too. Interesting check and balance, if you ask me. We need to form movements and coalitions to get things done, or bend a party back toward our interests, but we have the tools to get after doing that with relative impunity too.

    All in all, it's not as bad as we often think! Really, it's a priority problem more than anything else. What is worth what? Americans often answer that with ideological purity, and our current politics reflect that to our mutual detriment.

    Moving to a third party seems like the answer, because a new choice sort of side steps all of that, and it's compelling. But, the real answer is priorities. When it sucks enough, we will find getting along well enough to reform makes sense. Until then, we may well just have to endure the suckage, and a third party answer is a cop-out kind of answer, given the realities of our system of government.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 07:37 AM #
  5. Two points. 1) I never said 3rd parties actually have a chance of winning. My point is the democratic party has become so corrupted by the same big money flowing into the Republican party (thanks Citizens United) that the democratic party no longer represents We The People, nor do they provide any real alternative solutions. Sustainable solutions to systemic issues. The status quo works just fine for the status quo, and the status quo will NOT make voluntarily change itself. That's against it's own best interests.

    Do I think a Green Party, Libertarian Party, Progressive party candidate has a chance of winning? Of course not. Too many un-informed voters making irrational decisions against their own best interest. What is my point?
    If a enough of us stand for our moral values, actually read party platforms, and vote for a third party they might get 1% - 5% of the vote. I think if the Green party got 5% of the vote it would push the democratic party farther left which is what we need. I would be completely pro-democratic party if they were the democratic party of the past that worked. But I'm only 25 years old and given everything I've witnessed in my lifetime of political activity, especially producing for the number one national syndicated progressive radio and tv program, today's system is too broken and corrupted now for tactics of the past.

    Point two. "Anyone casting a vote for a non-viable candidate (3rd party) is automatically casting a vote against themselves. We saw this in action with the 2000 election. All those Nader voters must have loved the fact Bush was selected as president rather than Gore."

    Clearly we have serious political amnesia in this country, which is why we are doomed to repeat the past. Everyone loves to jump onto the 2000 Ralph Nader lost it for Al Gore in Florida nonsense. This is not true. If you recall correctly, it was SCOTUS that intervened during the recall (thanks to FL GOV Jeb Bush pulling for bro George) it was SCOTUS that stopped the recount, and SCOTUS that appointed Bush president because Bush would receive irreparable harm if they didn't.

    Had SCOTUS NOT stopped the recount, and had they finished the recount, Al Gore would have clearly won the election. This has nothing to do with Ralph Nader, other than Ralph made it close enough for a recount.

    I get that some of you who have been doing this for much longer than I've been alive tend to get stuck in your routines and tend to buckle down and stick to what you've done forever, because that has seemed to work for you. Well again, here at 25, looking at the future that I have to deal with, the game has shifted. Nonviolent social movements by We The People to fight for a weekend, child labor laws, or equal rights are gone. General strikes are gone. The only thing left is the money. As long as you got it, its all good too. So maybe you might exercise some empathy and try to understand where I might be coming from. Trying to give my future a chance, and maybe someday my child's future a chance.

    You can't tell people they are wrong, it only invokes a "kill the messenger" reactionary response. But I fear that being able to show people they are wrong on this one will take too long, and it will be too late. I know somebody is thinking well, take over the democratic party from the inside and reform the party from within. Great idea 50 years ago. Status quo won't change itself or allow itself to change. The fat rats are scrambling for the last bits of cheese while they can before the ship sinks. Look at Dingle from MI - 50+ years in congress, he is bailing out. Lots of the congress veterans have been bailing out last few years.... I wonder why?

    My last point. I just want solutions to come about. I don't care which party does it either. I'm not about partisanship, I'm about solutions. Why get locked down to something that we know is flawed, broken, and not functioning as originally attended? Its kind of like, why does a victim of domestic abuse continue to run back to their abuser? Or why does a wife of a cheating husband keep letting him do that to her? Why do we remain silent and inactive and beholding to the democratic party, when clearly they are only serving themselves, their campaign donors, and the corrupted system for which they work for? The same thing goes for the Republican party by the way. The Republican party has become crazy. The democratic party has become useless. The middle class is getting shafted. And many are falling from middle to working-poor class. We keep remaining passive, expecting the cavalry to come riding in any moment and save us. Spoiler alert: they aren't coming. WE are the cavalry. :-)

    Please check out my website. All of my past shows are posted there, for free in entirety. All 107 episodes. Watch a few of them and tell me what you think :-) Here are a couple on this topic...
    My video on Green Party in 2012

    My interview with Jill Stein -

    The ideas behind a Green party for example (don't hear this coming from democratic party but most dem voters want this:)

    Maybe I am the only person who is tired of being lied to, sold out, and abused by the system. That's fine, at least I refuse to remain silent. Speak up. Question authority. Read a book and turn off your television is a good place to start.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 08:32 AM #
  6. shipwreck

    The establishment of a third party is almost always attempted in the wrong way, from the top down, running a candidate for president. Parties and movements take root from the bottom up. Electing a an independent candidate to the White House might feel good for the moment, but he/she would be mostly ignored by Congress. It would be like a cat trying to negotiate with a room full of dogs.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 09:23 AM #
  7. missing_kskd

    Had Nader not spoiled the vote, the door would have not been open for SCOTUS to select, not elect Bush.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 10:20 AM #
  8. missing_kskd

    I agree with you about the money Jacob. BTW, movements still work. They always work. The difference now is we have made money speech.

    I have long advocated a self funding for progressive politics. When we all step up and put money in, say $10 / month, those amounts can change parties.

    So far those are diluted, which wins races, but not much else.

    Really, if I were at 25, I would be very seriously working on how to monetize movements. I am convinced it will take a serious and sustained effort, financed by ordinary people to get the power needed for real reform.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 10:25 AM #
  9. Skybill9

    "When we all step up and put money in, say $10 / month, those amounts can change parties."

    Optional, of course.

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 10:29 AM #
  10. missing_kskd

    In short, that power will take the form of a movement which can grow to own a party.

    That is exactly what the oligarchs have been doing. So then, it is game on! We are quite literally going to have to pay to get the power needed for equitable policy.

    So here is the challenge. People do not believe money in politics makes any sense and they want change. Talking about that is good to build consensus, but it is ineffective to secure real power. How do we get them to understand that, pay, work together and get it done?

    Posted on March 6, 2014 - 10:36 AM #