No party affiliations listed on candidates handouts

[STOSH BURGESS]

Handouts that I have received, commonly from those seeking local political office do not include party affiliations. Candidates not including their party affiliation is really annoying, to say the least. Candidates also have a habit of putting their family photos on these handouts. I personally do not care what the candidates look like or what their families look like, but I know that this is not the case for all. I think knowing all the political groups a candidate is associated is the most important thing on a handout. I can see the “vote for me, not my partyâ€Â￾ approach, but believing candidates is something that does not come easy to me, not just because they sometimes lie, but really because when they enter office, it is really hard for them to follow through with the agenda they preached during a campaign. Things are hard to get done in office or out of office. The political groups that you associate with can really give a voter an idea of who you are. The fact that Lakewood has non-partisan elections, for me means that two candidates of the same party affiliation can be on the ballot in November. It does not mean, I do not care what party you’re a member of.

[Stan Austin]

Stosh-- Let me offer a perspective from the other side, that of a candidate or a person advising a candidate.

As you might imagine, drafting campaign communications including literature is a calculated process. Part of the calculation might include the degree of emphasis on different things such as party affiliation. And part of the calculation is the prediction of how voters such as you will react to the literature.

I know it might sound overly contrived an somewhat dissingenuous but I think from the beginning of time people have tried to put on their best face in any relationship.

Stan (Stach) Austin

[Shelly Gould Burgess]

Um, what, Stan? This is intended as gentle ribbing, but did you really say anything in that post? You must be a very good campaign writer! No, in all seriousness, I get your point...that campaigners analyze demographics and use marketing techniques on their liturature.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if a candidate belongs to a party, she should be proud enough of her party-member status to announce her affiliation. Party membership automatically gives people an idea of views and makes it easier for the voter to understand the candidate.

A note on the family photos. I HATE that! The statement is basically "I'm a heterosexual." Bleah. How does that make you a good candidate? It plays into prejudices.

Shelly Gould Burgess (Stosh is my hubby.)

[Stan Austin]

Shelly---- I get your point!

Actually, I and others opposed Lakewood turning "non partisan" because of the very fact that a party affiliation at least gave a voter some basic guidance as to the political philosophy of a candidate.

An interesting sidelight to the "family" picture---- when I ran in the 1970's the question of sexual orientation wasn't part of the discussion. A family picture did serve to indicate that the candidate had the same concerns as a typical Lakewood family.

My campaign mangager suggested that I run a picture with kids and a dog and just caption it "Stan Austin with kids and the dog".

Wouldn't have been a lie exactly-------but-------

Stan

[Shelly Gould Burgess]

Thanks for having a good sense of humor, Stan! In retrospect I was worried you'd be offended when I really meant it as teasing.

ANYHOW...I think campaign literature in general really tells us about our society's lack of critical thinking when voting. As the last presidential election showed, Americans in general vote based on feelings rather than facts. I understand why candidates don't include much political information and instead show themselves to be "wholesome" and in line with societal norms. Voters would rather feel good about a candidate than take the time to examine and understand issues. Was it Jefferson who didn't want to give the vote to most Americans because he feared what uneducated voters would do? We may provide free K-12 education in America, but being an educated voter is quite a bit different from being a high school graduate.

Thanks,
Shelly

[Mike Deneen]

I am very annoyed by the lack of party identification. It seems a lot more relevant than a lot of the tripe you usually find on campaign lit.

Of the announced candidates, here is their party affiliation:

Democrats:
Fitzgerald, Dever, Antonio, Shields and Brennan

Republican:
Carroll (no relation to Judge Carroll)

This list is may not be all inclusive since I have not checked with the Elections Board. I apologize for any omissions.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

I really like the discussion that is going on about non-partisan elections and candidates lack of party identification on their literature. I never put my affiliation on my literature because I believe it is misleading and irrelevant to local politics. My perspective is contrary to what some have posted. My stance on the smoking issue is not exactly considered "Republican," nor were there conservatives knocking down my door with support for the skatepark. These are both progressive issues that I believe in and they fall outside my party line. I am not going to jeopardize support as a candidate by putting a litmus test on my literature. I have been door to door enough times to know that some voters ask your affiliation and then the discussion quickly ends or goes in the right direction. Non-partisan elections ask voters to look beyond party and at the qualifications of the candidate and the issues they stand for. I believe that this encourages more candidates to run and I hope it will mean that voters will start to pay closer attention to races. Term limits is a concept that has also been terrible for democracy. Why pay attention when the bum is going to be thrown out automatically? It puts a disincentive on participation. Just a few thoughts on the process.

Non-partisan elections isn't going away anytime soon. It was approved by 71% of Lakewood voters. That is a landslide in electoral terms.

[dl meckes]

Non-partisan elections isn't going away anytime soon. It was approved by 71% of Lakewood voters. That is a landslide in electoral terms.

I would consider this to be a clear mandate.

While I declare my affiliation at primaries for whichever party has the most interesting race, I am an independent voter. Having a potentially broader choice of candidates from which to choose theoretically offers me a greater choice of representation.

[STOSH BURGESS]

The idea that party lines do not matter on the local level, I strongly disagree with. Many council people use their city council seats as a stepping stone to move on to more powerful political positions. With out this local success and names being in papers for drafting controversial ordinances and so on, they would most likely never get elected to the positions they might seek next. I am on the left and would not want someone on the right to be elected locally to later see them move up to a state position and thus give them a real chance to promote their party agenda. I am sure this might be the same thought for some on the right. One other point about the majority that supported the non-partisan elections. I would think that there is a segment of voters that might of voted for non-partisan elections not because they did not care about political parties. This group might of voted this way so that their would be a chance that no republican would be on the ballot at all(or vice a versa), instead of the guaranteed spot they would normally get. You might want to say that you do not need the mass support of your party locally, thus you do not need to bring your party affiliation into you campaign. If you would run for a state position you might need that party support and maybe push the party name some more (yes i see the importance of the party support in the states partisan election). Just a thought?

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Stosh,
All good points. Keep in mind that you are in dialogue with someone who believes in non-partisan county, state, and national elections. Maybe I read too much Washington, but I think his belief that factions would not serve the best interest of our country has been a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hate the parties, but it is an unfortunate fact that a politician has to pick one to get anywhere beyond local politics. I am constantly accused of drifting to the other side of the aisle by Republicans, and Democrats often accuse me of being too conservative. Well, what's the real story? The fact is that I support ideas based on a general philosophy and my interpretation of conservative or Republican philosophy does not always match that of my GOP colleagues. Does that mean I am less Republican? To some it does. For example, I see the smoking issue in terms of public health and the right to clean air. Those are normally viewed as "Democratic" notions, although I would disagree with the origins of that thought. So am I being a radical environmentalist and therefore a Democrat, or just a Republican gone wrong? This type of blurring of the parties and their positions occurs on a myriad of issues. This is what often frustrates voters after the fact. They think they voted for someone who is Republican and therefore that politician should vote the party line always. When the politician doesn't follow that line they are considered a turncoat or disingenuous. I think that is garbage. This is the reason I support and will continue to support non-partisan elections. I don't believe for a moment that it puts myself or anyone else in a better position to run for state office. Some might vote for me for city council because I voted for a smoking ban or a skatepark, but when they find out that I am pro-life or support traditional marriage they become immediately polarized. I think that that is the reality of the situation. I could be wrong though. Maybe down the line I will run for state rep. again and we can test our theories.

[Dan Slife]

Non-partisan elections effect political decisions in a way that is not necessarily more "open" and "choice" oriented to the voting, and some would say "uneducated" population, as much as they allow candidtates with definate party affiliations to fly under the radar screen where hard, party-lin issues are concerned. "Open" elections are deceptively choice oriented in a way that mirrors the multiplicity of choice within competitive markets. In this regard, we are choosing a flavor not based upon it's essential ingredients but on the appereance of differentiation.

Perhaps we need a market place of candidates. However, I'd prefer to know the ideological ingredients that inspire the flavor fads of each election cycle. In some regards, we're minimizing the creative friction of the 2 party system by dilluting affiliation where no true differentiation has occured. True differentiation from traditional partyline,where party politics still dominate decission making, would be non-affiliated with either the red or the blue team (probably not effective). As the effectiveness at any level, of any ruling party is dependent on intergovernemtal relationships, differentiation is illusionary where support is lacking at other levels of governance for an ideologial mutant.

[STOSH BURGESS]

Dan, you'll have to forgive me, but your post makes my head hurt. I am clearly not one of your peers. If you would not mind elaborating your point as if you might be talking to a truck driver like myself, but of course without any obscenities or bad jokes.

[Dan Slife]

certainly,

Suppose only 2 essential types of patio furniture exist, or more appropriately are allowed/accepted. Wicker and Wood. Within a competitive markert where such raw material restraints exist, manufacturers of patio furniture will put much creative energy into creating multiple options for consumers..... all made of wood and wicker.

At the end of the day however, there is only wood and wicker. You might trim a wood chair with wicker braiding, or vice versa. For purposes of this analogy, the frame or backbone, from which the chair draws its support will be one or the other. The rest is eye candy to create the appearance of choice, and to get you to buy the chair. But taken in essence, it is what it is...until plastic enters the market( 3rd party?)

The validity of this analogy draws heavily from the way in which politicians work the middle (muddle) by picking and choosing issues that can be plucked from the other side without violating the essential tennets of their part line.

Concerning support from other levels of government and ideological mutants:
If the wicker party has contol of the house and senate at the state and feberal levels of government, it will be hard enough for the wood party to move let alone the plastic start-up. When both sides claim issues, that are trivial in the bigger picture,what we get is the appreance of choice. Meanwhile big picture politics nearly unifies red in blue where globalism is concerned. Has our relationship to the world bettered or worsened as party lines have so distinctly blured?

[Tom Bullock]

Dan, nicely communicated by analogy.

Valid questions on difference and substance of parties. Two factors are at play here:

1) candidates respond to voters--package their product to sell in the pre-existing market (How do you sell wicker in a wood market, much less educate consumers to buy plastic? You're just one little shop-keeper in a huge, crowded, distracted market);

2) there's a lack of ideas in the sense of deep thinking, strategic understanding, a long view of trends and what to do about them.

The neocons have a (huge) leg up on the competition, thanks to the well-funded think tank machine (Heritage, CATO et al) but their ideas boil down to defending the status quo and perpetuating the interests of the powerful (however they *are* quite shrewd in their tactics and techniques for doing so).

Progressives, I'm afraid, are truly, deeply befuddled.

I'll add that most of the third-party market for "plastic" are really frustrated wicker or wood consumers (Nader and the Greens are frustrated progressive; libertarians, frustrated conservatives). Perhaps Perot was a true "third" option, but his was a cult of personality--more like a market fad (for Pet Rocks or Beenie Babies). Perhaps LaRouche is your third option?[/list][/list]

[Kenneth Warren]

Broadly speaking, the difficulties with third parties often stem from the conspiratorial, cultic and irrational third rail memes typically contained in critiques of the status quo. The critique must ramp up resentful homie energy on the low road in order to contest the two party space on the high road where the ideology has concreased into power.

Typically twentieth century third way politics attempted to advance an organization of society that was neither Capitalist nor Communist. Hence the third way.

Germany was often the place from which such thinkers advanced third way politics.

“In Green Stormtroopers in the Streets of Berlin?- Confronting the eco-fascist tradition in the German experience,â€Â￾ Steve Chase, provides a deep geo-political context for assessing the evolution of the discourse and memes that give rise to Third Rail/Third Way movements.

Thus Chase:

“The various wings of the volkisch movement were united by their search for an authentically German "Third Way." People as seemingly disparate as authoritarian reactionaries, romantic anarchist communards, disgruntled peasants, and the spiritual followers of Rudolph Steiner were all focused on finding some middle path to national renewal that was neither capitalist nor communist. One can certainly hear an echo of this political orientation in the early slogan of the German Greens, "We are neither left nor right; we are in front."

The earlier search for a Third Way came to the foreground most strongly after World War I. In contrast to proletarian Marxism, the emerging hunger for a Third Way was grounded in nature mysticism, anti-modernism, and nationalism. In contrast to bourgeois conservatism, it was also anti-capitalist and critical of orthodox Christianity. German author Moller van den Bruck, considered by many as a "prophet" of the Third Way, called for "a German socialism" that embraced "a corporate concept of the state and economy that might have to be instituted through revolutionary means, but which, once established, must be bound by conservative principles." The youth movement was very taken with such ideas, and became increasingly enamored of direct actionâ€â€￾what they called the "idealism of deeds"â€â€￾as a tool for change against an unresponsive, party dominated, parliamentary system that seemed unconcerned with the natural and cultural needs of the people."

For more see: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/oct1999chase.htm

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair trotted out ‘third way’ notions. However, they were simply shifting rhetorical strategy along the high road of the Anglo-American Neo-liberal globalist power paradigm.

So it is important to appreciate how the roots and branches of “Third Wayâ€Â￾ politics extend by way of ideology in historical and political space.

Perhaps Mr. Powell-Bullock's mention of LaRouche is intended to suggest the many caveats that greet those who in befuddlement wander off the processed power-soaked reservation of the two party system looking for the third way.

LaRouche, whose critique of economics and British Zionism, is thus the thin edge of a thick cultic wedge with many caveats to be considered.

Sourcewatch presents this take on LaRouche:

“Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922) is an American politician, and a perennial candidate for President of the United States. While he associates himself with the Democratic Party, he has never been that party's nominee for office and he is not accepted within the mainstream of the party, although he has won the acceptance of Democratic Party mavericks such as Senator Eugene McCarthy and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. He has also won some non-binding Democratic state primaries, including North Dakota in 1992 and Michigan in 2000. He believes that a monetary-financial crisis akin to the Great Depression is imminent, and was a candidate in the 2004 US Presidential Election. In his early political career LaRouche often used the pseudonym Lyn Marcus.

His political views are extremely controversial and are characterized by his belief in a number of complex conspiracy theories, involving global plots to establish a frightening New World Order, involving such figures as the British Royal Family (especially the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh), George P. Shultz, and George H. W. Bush and other circles of international bankers engaging in what he has characterized as a "synarchist" political movement of the oligarchy. A typical claim is that the government of East Germany-- with the complicity of U.S. government and private organizations! -- attempted to frame him for the murder of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme. According to LaRouche followers, this claim was corroborated on Swedish national radio in August of 1992, by a leading former East German Stasi officer, Dr. Herbert Brehmer. LaRouche's opponents on the political conservative right have characterized him as a fascist and a communist, his opponents on the political liberal and socialist left have characterized him as a fascist, Bonapartist, and a right-wing populist. LaRouche currently characterizes himself as an Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat.

According to Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, however:
"Though often dismissed as a bizarre political cult, the LaRouche organization and its various front groups are a fascist movement whose pronouncements echo elements of Nazi ideology.[1] Beginning in the 1970s, the LaRouchites combined populist antielitism with attacks on leftists, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and organized labor. They advocated a dictatorship in which a 'humanist' elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists. They developed an idiosyncratic, coded variation on the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracy theories. Their views, though exotic, were internally consistent and rooted in right-wing populist traditions."[1] (http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/synthesis.html)
Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 273.

For more see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... n_LaRouche

Curiously enough, LaRouche warned America about Green politics in 1984. Chase writes: "Having purchased 30 minutes of prime time commercial television for a campaign spot, extreme right-winger Lyndon LaRouche stood before the camera to "alert" the American people to the dangerous rise of Green politics in Europe and the United States. He denounced the West German Green Party as the hub of a powerful international "neo-Nazi" movement out to reduce the United States to complete submission. He repeatedly uttered phrases like "violent Green Stormtroopers marching through the streets of Berlin" while old film clips of Nazi street demonstrations flickered across the screen. He concluded by charging that Vice President Walter Mondale was the brains behind a conference held in Saint Paul, Minnesota the previous August to launch an "anti- American" Green movement in the United States."

I know we have wandered deep into the ingredients that Mr. Slife’s post has suggested. However, Mr. Powell-Bullock’s point about LaRouche in the context of local politics called for the provision of additional context.

Critical insight is the antidote to progressive befuddlement.

Kenneth Warren