The Declaration of an Independent

There is a renewed revolution for independence now underway in this country, as evidenced by the growing number of citizens declaring their political independence.   This modern movement for independence represents the fastest growing segment of the political environment. The number of citizens now declaring their independence has outstripped those who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans.

The original revolution for independence in America was about removing sovereignty from the king and returning it to the people. I see the independence resurgence now underway as a personal revolution of the first order, a proto-revolution if you will, emanating from individuals reasserting personal sovereignty. The present independence movement represents a forward effort toward transferring sovereignty back to the people one person at a time.

Independent voters have been characterized as moderates or centrist, but I’d venture to say that self described independents are a separate breed altogether.  As an independent myself, my liberal positions are very much liberal and my conservative positions are generally very conservative.  If I have a “middle” position on any issue it is not reached by compromise, it is arrived at by careful deliberation after seeking the facts.  From my prospective, independents seek to understand the issues concerning society with the intention of finding solutions which do not necessarily meet political agendas.

Independent voters are persistently marginalized by the two-party system. Independent’s have been dismissed as being Democrats and Republicans in disguise, it is alleged that most Independents lean toward one of the two parties and therefore resemble either a Democrat or a Republican. I declare that party affiliation by Independents is simply a function of political survival; it’s a symptom of the stranglehold the two-party system has on our democracy, and is not one of clear choice (It’s a Hobson’s choice). When an individual declares their independence, they should be taken at their word and not be summarily dismissed.

Independents have been relegated to the political nether land of centrist by the two-party system. This linear conception of politics, as shown in Figure 1, does not provide a sufficient description of the dynamic socio-political process which gives rise to this renewed independence revolution 

Figure 1

A diagram of this dynamic demonstrates that the “center” is not some arbitrary point between the “left” and the “right”, it lies at various points above and beyond the left/right political continuum depicted in Figure 2. 

Figure 2

As illustrated in Figure 2, independents fall within a vast region that lies at an acute angle to the left and the right; at its root it’s libertarian and at its extreme it’s anarchistic.  When the debate between the political left and political right narrows, the ranks of anarchist expands as a reasonable and necessary reaction as the graph in Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3

This revolution for political independence is long overdue; Thomas Jefferson opined that “Every generation needs a new revolution”.  I call on all independents to join together, not as a third party but as an un-party, a kind of citizen parliament without a platform, to reaffirm the declaration of independence and declare our independence from the two-party system.  It is time for this organic revolution of independents to band together to bring a change to government through grassroots election reform.  I further call upon those registered with the two major parties, along with the disenfranchised voters who have abandoned the election process altogether, to join in this independence movement and register as independents. 

The need to band together for grass roots election reform has been made more urgent with the Supreme Court’s five to four decision that extended the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which confirmed the old adage that money talks, building on this earlier decision that declared that corporations (as super citizens) have the right to speak the loudest in the Citizens United decision. 

Despite the courts interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment which extended certain constitutional protections to corporations, a corporation is not endowed by it’s creator with inalienable rights, its personhood is a legal fiction created by law, so it is the law that should curb its political speech; if the court refuses to do it then the people must take action.  Indeed, as a body, we can formulate the principles for election reform and as a single force dictate what will be acceptable from the candidates we elect and make the taking of inordinately large contributions from whatever source a disincentive.  As a virtual parliament of independent voters, without a platform or candidates, it would be impossible to be controlled by PACs and special interest groups.  They say you can’t purge politics of money, I declare we can and we shall!

Copyright © 2010 – 2011