Strategy (2012)

[In my 2012 independent candidacy campaign, I had a "Thesis,", a "Strategy", and a "National Battle Plan." Those by and large carry over to 2014.  I am preserving the way I stated the same in 2012.  This entry is the way I stated the matter in 2012.]

If the thesis is accepted, and the "iron triangle" will do everything in its power to keep their respective supporters divided and embattled against one another, then the answer to the question at the end of the thesis entry is

Voters should temporarily put aside their understandable and legitimate partisan differences and temporarily act in unison and demand that Congress debate the extent to which there is a corrupt and broken system and that, as a legislative body, it engage in a strenuous national debate about what needs to be done about the system and make a legislative enactment that Congress proposes to the rest of the country be tried out to repair the broken system.

Under this strategy as applied to the 2012 elections, if Congress can be forced to act, voters can then make a decision for themselves about whether they are satisfied with trying out the proposed solution enacted by Congress.  Voters who decide that Congress has failed and has not proposed a solution that those voters are willing to try out for the country should vote against their incumbent Senators and Representative in November to register their view that Congress has failed the country and needs to be replaced in its entirety.  If Congress does take action before November, voters who are satisfied with trying out the proposed solution for the country can make their voting decisions in November on other grounds.

It should be obvious that the effectiveness of this strategy depends almost entirely on how many citizens can be persuaded to act in unison in demanding that Congress debate and take action before November.  Every citizen who is not willing to join in that unified action, and who instead seeks debate on other issues that are important to the voter and who makes a voting decision on other issues will undermine the unified approach.  The more voters there are who don't join in, the more there will be distraction of candidates, and opportunity for them, to spend time taking opposing positions and appealing to voters supporting opposite sides. Possibly there could be approximate equal division between voters making voting decisions on the basis of other issues, and the voters who join in the demand for Congressional debate and action on the corruption problem could be seen as a swing vote that the incumbent Congress concludes that it must respond to.  That is speculative, and clearly it is better to persuade as many voters as possible to join in the unified action,

It cannot be gainsaid how hard it is and will be to persuade voters of the compelling merits of the thesis and to abandon temporarily their traditional loyalties, put aside their partisan differences and act in unison to send the needed rebuke to the "iron triangle."

In all honesty, I don't think the strategy can be successfully implemented in the five months before the November election.

There is nonetheless a lot of forceful advocacy going on in the face of unlikely short term success before November, and in the hopes of greater success in a longer term that extends beyond November.  In these circumstances there is nothing wrong with working as hard as possible prior to Novmeber.

The current time seems opportune.   If corruption contributes to poor Congressional performance, voters will be more motivated to deliver a strong rebuke to Congress in the current time of great concern about the economy and the troubled circumstances many voters find themselves in.  In such times, the corrupt Washington cesspool is just more galling.

This has been building for several years. The difficult times, and the agitations they cause, have brought into being or caused to grow numerous minor parties and other organizations that have similar outlooks about the entrenched political elite and an increasingly corrupt political system.  Under the strategy, it is critical that there be as much speaking in unison by these organizations that they are capable of doing.  My experience is that this is difficult to accomplish.  These organizations, like individual voters, have numerous other important issues, and it is hard for them to make a decision to suppress temporarily strongly held views about the other issues (as to which others who might be allies will have opposing positions).

Further, while there is a high level of agreement that the system is broken, there will be disagreement about exactly what should be tried to repair the system.  To this, the argument needs to be to kick the matter to Congress and force Congress to engage in a national debate and make a proposal to the country.  In the course of this process, organizations and voters who have different ideas about what should be done to repair the system might be willing to agree to give Congress' proposal a try.  That would be great headway and even a victory I think.

For over a year, I have been in communication with GOOOH, the Reform Party, my local Tea Party, Move To Amend, and candidates seeking to challenge incumbents.  I will continue in my urging that they temporarily emphasize the objective of  unity in demanding that Congress act by November and for the November elections be used as a referendum by the voters.  I will post in this blog my communications to those organizations and persons, call the same to their attention, solicit them to review my communications with other groups, and hopefully inspire stretching for unity in demanding Congress to act before November.

It helps to have a simple, concrete issue that can focus national attention on the corruption problem. This is where the First Amendment movement comes in.  The 2012 elections should be used to urge every Congressional challenger to raise the corruption problem as an issue and to try to force every incumbent Representative and Senator to react and say whether they think there is a problem or not that is deserving of a national debate, including whether the First Amendment should be amended.  Voters need to signal that they will be watching what happens very closely and will be strongly influenced by the same about how they cast their votes in November.

In this strategy, it needs to be recognized that the iron triangle utilizes a "get along, go along" tactic in Washington.  If a state or Congressional district delivers a rebuke to its United States Senator or Representative by ejecting an incumbent and sends to Washington someone who has a purpose of weakening the iron triangle, there is a risk of retaliation by the iron triangle and unfavorable treatment by Congress of the state or district in question.  Thus, in the strategy, it is important that voters reach across state and district lines to achieve solidarity on the delivering of the rebuke to the iron triangle.

Although there is some redundancy (and consolidation may be in order), please read on to Voters' Victory in 2012.