I:DEA 1 – Independent Thought

One of the first things that Independent voters need to do is to remain independent and uncommitted. Whether during the Democratic or Republican parties’ primaries or the general election, Independents should refrain from providing any overt or implied support for one party’s candidate over the others’.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

The influence and power of Independent voters is at its greatest when no one can depend upon it or even assess which direction it is likely to go. The candidates are forced to contend with the orthogonal forces of retaining their core party constituencies and providing some reasons for the Independents to choose them over their rival(s). This creates more opportunities for the candidates to exhibit some sustentative aspect of their philosophy of government and society, and the true nature of their positions and policies on issues that are important in the public or the private arenas.

Independents should be asking themselves, “Why are they wrong?” This is important because as an Independent you should not be bound to any ideology of the candidate’s party. If you buy into the ideological concept then you are prone to fall into thinking that their positions and policies are the right ones just because they appear consistent with the ideology. The ideology might sound good and have all the trimmings you expect of an American value, but it may also be a directionless compass that provides no guidance what-so-ever to establishing a position, policy or goal in the service of the American society. If you ask why they are wrong and can’t find or think of reasons that support that contention then you are more likely to find a candidate who has not just found some popular ‘button phrases’ to push. But remember even here if you find the answer acceptable, don’t commit. As an Independent you want to find individuals who can make you understand why the country should pursue a particular course, and you want it to be based on information and facts that are relevant to the real world.

When you are polled about your opinion on political issues, candidates and choices you have to not accept the premise of the question. As an Independent you should consistently indicate that you would not be persuaded to vote for or against someone because of a statement make by them or about them. You wouldn’t agree or disagree that a position on one issue is critical to your decision. You should indicate that no candidate or party has adequately presented a clear and well explained position on how they would implement and fulfill their proposed solutions. You can indicate that you like what someone has done on some issue, but that that is not sufficient to determine your choice. So generally you don’t want to provide pollsters with useful information. You do want to take the poll/survey, you just want to make sure your answers are unsupportive of anyone. It’s not in an Independents’ interest for the parties and candidates to find ‘sound bites’ that seem to win over voters. You want candidates to struggle to provide you with a demonstration of their ability to understand and explain how their actions will result in positive outcomes for the nation.

Independents should also tell any friends, neighbors and relatives who tell you why their candidate is the one to vote for and support that you don’t see their favorite candidate as being a sufficiently moderate voice and force for the nation. Independents are the only group who can make moderate candidates stronger candidates. Any party that wants to survive will have to find candidates that can work with like-minded individuals of any political orientation that can find a common ground to accomplish the tasks of government. Independents, I suspect are not generally individuals who think that all-or-nothing solutions are in fact solutions to the problems facing our pluralistic society. If’s if very simple, it’s probably actually very simple; and complex problems are rarely solved by people with simple solutions. Those solutions are simple for a reason.

Independents should discuss and offer opinions about issues; provide assessments of why a proposal, plan or policy of a candidate is worth consideration; and present questions and concerns that the candidates are not addressing. But it should be clear that no candidate has sufficiently satisfied the Independent with regard to these issues or questions.

A last thought here for Independents is a condition for supporting a candidate; even if you won’t tell them that you support them. If you don’t think that candidate is smarter then you, why would you vote for them?

Now to have an impact on the candidates and parties, Independents don’t want to wait until the election and convey their choice through their vote. A month or two before the election, but not sooner, Independents should feel free to indicate their preferences. This will focus the candidates and parties upon the views and requirements of Independents as surely as your execution day focuses your mind.

I:DEAs - How Have We Come To This?

Perhaps you’ve heard Einstein’s pithy saying: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Most people think this is one of those obvious and well understood pieces of wisdom. Most people would be wrong.

We are currently witness to a long standing example of an American insanity. America is expecting that the electorate can choose political leaders, especially a President, who will solve their problems, vanquish their fears, and insure their future security. And certainly we have a great deal of evidence and confidence from having elected our present and previous presidents, senators, representatives, governors, mayors, ya-da-ya-da-ya-da to be proud of the obvious success of our proven judgments. Why these must be some of the most admired people in the country today. These officials must be role models that we hold up to our children and others as individuals who are doing exactly what we need and would want. And the country must be in the best condition anyone could hope for. Are you starting to see the insanity yet?

Because we have a first term Democratic president, we are only able to watch the Republican Party’s struggle to find their presidential candidate. Well, you can’t expect to have everything you would want readily available just to make a point. Fortunately, the Republicans’ are making up for the lack of another group politicians aspiring to the position of the most incompetent bunch of fools in history.

How has this happened? How have we come to this?

How, it’s the inevitable consequence of the electorate’s evolutionary breeding program of politicians of course. No one would be disrespectfully enough to place the blame for these people on God. No! We are responsible for these people. So there is only one solution to this dilemma, only one thing that Americans can do. Americans are going have to do the things that they resist and avoid at every turn. Americans are going to have to think and make sacrifices.

Now not all Americans are going to be able to do this. For instance, the core Republican and Democratic parties’ bases are not likely to be able to engage in one or the other, certainly not both. Fortunately, we are not at an impasse like the ones’ we are persistently seeing in Congress and with the President. There is still a group of Americans we can turn to that can step up and do the heavy lifting that is necessary in these turbulent times. Since this aggregate of Americans is as culpable as any other group in allowing our country’s situation to have progressed to this untenable state, it is only fair that they must carry this burden.

Who then are these people? They are known in the colloquial political nomenclature as Independents. The best hope for America rests with the Independents, because only they can act in the interests of the nation and the people. Independents are not bound to the inane pathological positions and philosophies that have racked and degraded the two dominate political parties.

So having identified the source from which America’s salvation can spring, what is needed is to engage their power to alter America’s political courses from their current trajectories to paths that will lead us to a vibrant and vital future. What we need then is I:DEAs (Independents: Determining Elections in America).

These I:DEAs will follow in subsequent submissions.

Recognizing a New State, or Just Another Reflection of the Old One

Today, Mahmoud Abbas - Palestinian President, formally requested the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a member state. And, of course, the leaders of the world are all abuzz about what to do. There are those who support it, and those who oppose it, and surely there are those who are seeking how best to find the opportunity to profit from it. So naturally amid the chaos and confusion about how to proceed, we get the chance to see the intellect of nations at work. Although I am not sure that it is apropos to use the term intellect from all that has been demonstrated and portrayed by the principle actors on the stage up to this point.

We hear why it is important that the Palestinians should be granted a state of their own. We hear why statehood cannot be achieved by fiat through a United Nations decree. But we don’t hear about the substance of the request. This is not because this would settle the issue which it would not, but because we are talking about the competence and understanding that world leaders both possess and rely upon. Surely, at least one world leader is almost smart enough to have noticed something important is being missed. It’s not possible, is it; that world leaders haven’t figured out that there are bigger issues related to this request than the question of whether there are sufficient and legitimate grounds and reasons to grant a statehood status to Palestine.

Apparently, it is. We are about to witness yet another illustration of the depth of vision that the collective wisdom and knowledge possessed by this assembly of the specially anointed leaders of our world and all their advisors and backers. The world will reap the bounty from the seed that is planted by their decision. While the seed will be different for whichever decision they make, they cannot avoid the inevitable consequences that once sown the harvest is sure to come. Although the world may find that as the tree produces the fruits of their intellect; it may not be sweet to the taste, nourishing to the body, or desirable for the soul.

If the United Nations can solve the Palestinian problem by bestowing statehood upon them, aren’t there any number of world problems that the United Nations can solve as simply? And if not, what are the questions that should be exposed as central to the Palestinian issue that are not being asked and certainly not discussed? What hasn’t even occurred to these smart individuals?

Well, the fruit of that tree is plentiful indeed. Thus explaining why the path to Palestinian statehood has evaded the effort of world leaders for such a short period of time.

Idiot Power – Not The US’s Solution to Energy

A solar-panel manufacturing company – Solyndra, now in bankruptcy is about to be yet-another political issue between the Republicans and Democrats. So we can anticipate a plethora of diatribes explaining why it was another failed governmental effort that illustrates why the government should not try and create jobs or why it was the right thing to do but unfortunately did not succeed. The political ping-pong ball will be batted back and forth and here and there across the media misinformation networks until something more irrelevant and titillating surfaces to distract the attention span deficient professionals. But what won’t surface or even be recognized is the true failure. Neither the Republican nor Democratic political leaders, think-tanks (an oxymoron if there ever was one), or either parties core constituents have noticed the governmental failure that occurred or would occur from the policies and theories that each advocates.

It’s not hard to understand why the Republicans and Democrats don’t see the real problem; first they are focused on their own interests (but not the country’s), and second they don’t understand that they don’t understand. The first problem is just unfortunate but expected given the voters elected them without any expectation that they would serve the overall needs and interests of the country. The second problem is that they are willing to delude themselves and anyone who supports them that they are capable of dealing with problems confronting the nation.

So rather than recognizing this as an opportunity to begin fixing the problem and for seizing the moment to help move America forward towards a more successful economic and vital nation, these politicians will squander another chance to make a difference for the good of America. Instead our political leaders will make another choice that suits the tastes of the ill-informed and follows the direction of the random winds of chaos.

Where is the Republican or Democrat that is ready and able to stand up and present to the American people the light that will illuminate the path forward? Is there no political leader anywhere that can place before the public a clear and understandable approach for what America should do to address the issue exemplified by the Solyndar situation?  And remember, the answer doesn’t even require you to be any smarter than the average person. Oh, would you vote for someone who you didn’t think was smarter than you? Really! That’s a very disturbing question isn’t it?

Whom Is The Middle? A Taxing Question

Mitt Romney has an idea to create more saving by Americans. He proposes to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital-gains (hereafter: savings’ earnings) from middle class savers. This obviously has two advantages: first, it reduces the middle classes reliance upon a governmental program like Social Security for their retirement needs; and second, it adds to the financial resources available to help stimulate the economy. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? But if a politician proposed it, doesn’t that mean that there is something inherently wrong, stupid and untrustworthy about it?

Well, let’s not go to the typical extremes that politicians go to and start judging things based on some ideological basis without any need to think, understand or evaluate. Let’s not be a Democrat or Republican; rather let’s be intelligent just to try something different.

To make such an assessment there are a couple of things that we would need to know. For example, what is the middle class? What is the income level that qualifies someone for not having to pay taxes? This is important because who and how much someone can benefit from this depends upon simple things like what the cut-off point is, or what counts in setting that cut-off: wages only, rental income, royalties, all the varieties of income forms that will allow for the unanticipated and unintended consequences of what seemed like a good idea at the time.

I assume that anyone below this middle-class upper limit would be qualified to get the no-taxes on savings’ earnings. So even those who don’t earn enough to get by can save and reap the bounty of this idea. Ok, it doesn’t do anything directly to help the poor; but it’s not a program aimed to help the poor so being criticized on that is not really fair.

For those that do manage to have some money that they can prudently set aside for some other purpose than subsistence that they could choose to save it. So we can imagine that there is a population of individuals that range from those who can save very small amounts each year to those who can elect to save considerably more up to the limit of income or some fixed limit that may be imposed upon the program. The tax benefit thus derived from this program will be proportionately larger for those most likely to be able to save the most, those at the upper middle income level.  Assuming I am one of these high-end beneficiaries, this makes perfect sense to me. It does of course seem to do this at the expense of those less fortunate than myself, but again I am better off so that is clearly the socially responsible thing for a constitutionally structured democracy would intend. I think that I lack a sense of why the government should be implementing a program that preferentially benefits me more than those of our nation that are unable to take advantage of it. Well we do that a lot already, like for the very wealthy which I would like to become one day, so it is a consistent approach to serving citizens unequally.

Now what about those poor hundred people who just missed the middle-class savings’ limit by one dollar? They get classically screwed! So I guess we will have to find a way to adjust the program so that it is somehow progressive. There are at least a half-dozen variations on the theme that could be adopted here, so I am sure that Congress will find a way to pick an approach that is really bad or at least the most inequitable form that can be made to sound fair and balanced.

I can hardly wait for this proposal to make it way through the corridors of Congress and into law. The opportunities for fraud and abuse are already percolating in my head. Well, what has Congress ever done that wasn’t fraught with greater problems and harm than the imaginary benefits that it would provide?