Why it’s okay to be Independent
I tend to receive a lot of emails like the following or, at least, with similar themes. Personally, I don’t have the desire to be officially affiliated with any political party. Of course, that could change in the future, but for now I enjoy being 100% “unattached.” This will be the last question I answer from TheCandidacy.com Mailbox until we decide to do so again or somebody sends a question I’m dying to answer publicly - whichever comes first.
Tomorrow’s post addresses the “youth vote” and next week brings a three-parter that’s sure to cause some waves - “Punishing the Mohammed Cartoonists and Reforming the Muslim World: 2 things that will never happen.” Enjoy!
So, you’re not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or other. Sounds to me like you’re either having an identity crisis or don’t have the balls to take a stand. Either way, people like you do the system no good. - Steve in San Francisco, California
One of the things I hate most about party politics is when one person asks another which party they belong to and then think they know everything about that other person based on the answer.
“Oh, you’re a Republican. So, you’re obsessed with ending legal abortion, never question your government, and hate gays and old people.”
“Democrat, eh? You must be a flag-burning liberal who wants abortion to be legal from conception through 8th grade and you hate your country.”
“Libertarian, you say? How’s that drug war going? If you guys had your way it’d be ‘Lord of the Flies’ meets ‘Cheech and Chong’ in the U.S.”
I hate being stereotyped and boxed into a predetermined ideological corner. So, I stay independent and enjoy the flexibility of not having to defend or promote any particular party. It’s liberating, more people should try it.
Have more questions? Feel free to submit them via comment or the contact page.
Don’t forget our poll from Monday about Election Observers for the US. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to vote.
Popularity: 5% [?]
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a Master of Arts in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism). Use the form on the right to sign up for the "Friday Morning Fix” and other timely updates.
on
lapaix
| Jul 31, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
AMEN!!!
David Lamb
| Jul 31, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
A few months ago when I was campaigning for Mike Gravel, I would tell people who asked that he was a libertarian, and the response I usually got was either “what are you, twelve?” or “someday, you’ll grow-up.” Even without the labels people put on you, I have never been one for partisan politics. The way I see it, political parties are attempts within government to monopolize the political “free-market.” Furthermore, parties confine their candidates by putting restrictions on what they can support and still be nominated the next time they run. And don’t get me started on gerrymandering.
dickmill
| Jul 31, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Speaking of gerrymandering — I’m reminded of two constitutional amendments I’d like to see:
1- no campaigning until “x” months before the election — fill in the “x” with something reasonable — like 6-9 months. I know…it violates freedom of speech…whatever. I have a right to peace and quiet.
2- all congressional districts must be “rectangular” with a maximum length:width ratio of “X:Y” (like 3:1.) The only exceptions to rectangular would be natural or state boundaries.
David Lamb
| Jul 31, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
“1- no campaigning until “x” months before the election — fill in the “x” with something reasonable — like 6-9 months. I know…it violates freedom of speech…whatever. I have a right to peace and quiet.”
-Good thought, but I don’t see how it can be enforced. Is a dinner with guests a campaign appointment?
“2- all congressional districts must be “rectangular” with a maximum length:width ratio of “X:Y” (like 3:1.) The only exceptions to rectangular would be natural or state boundaries.”
-I think you’ve got something here!
scootertrash
| Aug 1, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Political Parties are what the founders meant when they wrote about “free association”. Folks are free to join/align themselves or not, and suffer no gubmintal repercussions.
Fact is folks in the US like the system that has evolved over 225 years. If they didn’t, the current system wouldn’t exist.
The system is not broken. People are.
BTW-I would consider it gubmint suppression of “free speech” if told I could not campaign whenever I wanted to.
Gerrymandering? Meh. Folks only complain when it adversely affects THEIR political flavor.
As usual, it’s the other guy who is the problem. My guy is fine, thank you.
David Lamb
| Aug 1, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
“Political Parties are what the founders meant when they wrote about “free association”. Folks are free to join/align themselves or not, and suffer no gubmintal repercussions.”
Actually the founders never intended for their to be political parties because they weren’t around when the Constitution was written. The closest thing then would have been the Federalists (those who supported the ratification of the Constitution) vs. the anti-Federalists (those who opposed it). But these weren’t really parties because they had no ideals other than the obvious one. Because the founding fathers didn’t consider the possibility of political parties, they did not put a clause against them in the Constitution. Eight years after ratification, in his Farewell Address, President Washington pleaded people to abandon their parties that had since been created and unite in what was best for America. Needless to say, it didn’t work out.