September 15, 2014

As a third party candidate or an independent, always remember that there is no constitutional provision for a two party system. Each political system was developed on a state by state basis, usually by the major party players. You are playing on their field. They have house rules. Know them and use them against the home team to create chaos within their system.

Political parties are little more than private clubs, and since they are private clubs that include legislators, most rules are passed to favor the house. I would expect no less (although they will always cry foul when you use their own rules against them).

Today I must take credit for the creation of chaos and clearly indicate that I am being a disruptive force because I think their game stinks. To do this I will argue that the is broken, that money has too prominent a role in campaigns, that those elected do not represent the interests of the state and the people while they serve as toadies for their funding masters, and that you need chaos to create any kind of valid revolution (in this case, a cerebral revolution aimed at completely changing the way the people think without violence).

Revolution can be both scary and desired. People always want to change the system and demand a revolution, yet they shy away from taking the action required to make that happen. Party politicians want to keep everyone in line and keep down the masses. They will always oppose revolutionary change by creating fear of the unknown (a strong human instinct from cave days). They do this because it works. Fear is a powerful force.

Similarly, hope is a powerful force. As such, most campaigns make promises, all of which are beyond proof at the time they are made. The difference is that people desire hope and fear change. “Everything will be alright, children”.

A candidate with a platform without promises of hope stands at a disadvantage. The job is to show that there is hope only if we face our fears. Does “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” sound familiar? Hmmm, was that during a time of uncertainty and depression? In short, if you can demonstrate how your platform will actually work, people can then understand and face the fear.

LESSON NINE: Do not pander unless you intend to deliver. What makes politicians a sorry lot is that they can’t deliver on their promises and therefore, appear as liars and charlatans. Your word is your bond. Don’t say what you don’t mean. Mean what you say. Agree only where you feel comfortable. You may be uncomfortable in front of certain audiences, but you will be respected for your position. This does not mean being rude or disparaging. It means polite disagreement, or, if possible, a statement as to where you can agree with portions of the matter. They will still hate you, but they will know that you have given their position serious consideration.

Seeds of the two major parties being the cause of social disruption should sprout in a day or two. In this case, Fung will represent traditional Republican dogma and Raimondo will represent the Democrat dogma. Continue to point out that extremes do not produce solutions but create campaign warchests.

Try to weave in the story that lawyers have created a system that keeps money coming in as long as the two sides keep fighting. Similarly, the politicians on the right and left keep flaming the fires to keep themselves funded. They are not seeking solutions because that would dry up the campaign funds and support.

On the radio today with John DePetro and Tara Granahan. It will be a call in. I expect that the forces will be mustered by my opposition to call in with questions that lead to where they want me to go. I suspect that it will have a few calls saying that I am an opportunist and an illegitimate candidate. It is easy to figure out by going to the opposition’s operatives. Note similarities in the subject and you have found the talking points sent out from the organization. It is easy to expect that there will be a few haircut phone calls, a few “I used to support you, but…” calls, and maybe a few that set up a question that will start with “Alan Fung is supported by the NRA, where do you stand on guns?” or “Gina has a well thought out position on jobs, where is your plan?”. We’ll see.

It is important to be prepared on issues, but those “questions” will more than likely only serve as a pretext on the part of the caller to disparage the campaign. Answer the questions, ignore the rhetoric.

Also, it is worth noting that in the comments on web pages, the standard hackneyed line of ‘if only he shaved and got a haircut’. After thirty years, this is not playing as well each time it is used. The opponents need to get a new angle, but I am fine that they have trotted out the old one. If you are a follower of web commentary, notice how it came out in concert roughly on or about September 13. Someone is running scared.

Always look for common threads. Usually the party faithful have been given a playbook and generally follow it without independent thought. Recognize it. I prefer not to use this ‘common thread’ approach in that it just rings hollow. It is better if your people know your positions and can fashion them in their own words instead of appearing robotic. You will suffer a bit in they will be adding their subjective twist to your position, but it is real.

Depetro’s show went well. Got to express the message of cooperative solutions as opposed to campaign funding from special interests which only serves to divide the people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s