Category Archives: Independents and third parties

Should states decide on immigration?

By Steve Brawner

Should immigration be more of a state issue than it is now? Ken Hamilton, Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 4th District, says it should be. The federal government sure can’t seem to solve it on its own.

Here’s how immigration would work if Hamilton, 58, an El Dorado accountant with Murphy USA, got his way. The federal government would continue to enforce border security and decide who gets to come into the country, but it would do so based on requests from the states. Some states would want a lot of immigrants, others not so many.

So say California decides it needs 10,000 farm workers. The federal government would grant that many visas to work in California only.

Then California would take it from there. Immigrants could work wherever they want within that state’s borders – unlike today’s employer-based visas, which force them to serve a particular boss who is regulated by the federal government. Immigrants could travel to other states, but they couldn’t work in them legally. However, certain immigrants such as migrant farm workers could receive visas allowing them to travel between states based on growing seasons. California could offer permanent state residency to those immigrant workers who follow the rules. It also could allot visas to members of its current illegal immigrant population. Eventually, immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship. In the meantime, states could determine what benefits they receive.

“The states can tailor the program to what they need,” he said. “If they need high-tech, they can do it. If they need farm workers, they can do it. I think that’s the best way to do it rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all program out of the federal government.”

Hamilton says a state-based approach would break the logjam in Congress. Democrats typically favor a path to citizenship. Republicans, meanwhile, are split between two factions. Establishment Republicans want a more open policy because employers need the workers and because the party needs to better appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing minority that is siding with Democrats in elections. On the other side, a large faction of Republicans say a path to citizenship amounts to awarding amnesty to lawbreakers. Secure the border, they say.

The result has been a sometimes ugly debate that hasn’t solved anything. We all know the current system inadequately controls the border. We all know it’s resulted in millions of illegal immigrants living here as part of a shadowy underclass without a real stake in society or an opportunity to achieve the American dream. We all know this situation provides a lot of cheap labor but also hurts certain American workers. But, election to election, little changes.

Hamilton, of course, almost certainly won’t be elected. The United States remains staunchly a two-party system despite voters’ unhappiness with what’s happening in Washington.

But picking winners and losers is not the only reason we have elections. It’s also a chance to have a national debate about the issues. The two major parties, whether they are promoting a path to citizenship or favor just closing the border, haven’t gotten us anywhere.

They can’t even figure out what to do with illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents and have much-needed technical skills. American taxpayers pay for an undocumented child immigrant to go to public school, sometimes from kindergarten through the 12th grade, but then it’s difficult for them to go to college and nearly impossible for them to fulfill their potential in the workforce. We won’t even give them a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the military.

So now someone else is offering another option: If Washington can’t solve the problem, let the states take charge.

Got a better idea?

America needs worse politicians

By Steve Brawner

Want better government? Make candidates worse at politics.

Politics is about winning elections, and today’s big campaigns and special interest groups have turned it into a science. Using sophisticated data mining techniques, they know our buying and online habits and therefore how we’ll probably vote. If you’re a 55-year-old Southern white male who drives a Ford truck and visits conservative news websites, the campaigns know it, and because of that, they know you’re almost certainly inclined to vote Republican. If you drive a Volvo and regularly shop at Whole Foods Market, they know you’ll probably vote Democrat.

Using that data, campaigns can reach individual voters through a technique known as microtargeting. Turnout and fundraising, not persuasion, is the goal. If you’re likely a Republican, the Tom Cotton campaign will send you material meant to push your buttons so you’ll show up on Election Day and hopefully donate money. The Mark Pryor campaign, meanwhile, will not waste its resources on you. If you don’t believe this, keep a tally of the political ads you see online and in your mailbox. Chances are you’re mostly hearing from only one of the candidates.

So don’t worry that anyone is somehow looking at your ballot. It’s not necessary to commit election fraud and risk a scandal. They know how you’ll vote before you do.

But while candidates are getting better at politicking, elected officials are becoming worse at governing. This current Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history in terms of bills passed through both houses. That’s good in many ways because no productivity is better than bad productivity. But it also means little of substance is being done about the national debt, immigration and other issues that demand action. Do you think Congress is doing a good job?

Furthermore, when Congress can’t get anything done, it cedes power to a president to use executive orders to do what he wants. An example is what’s happening with No Child Left Behind, the education law passed by Congress under President George W. Bush that greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. The law expired seven years ago, but because Congress can’t agree on anything, its outdated and unworkable requirements haven’t been repealed. How can schools still educate children? Through waivers granted by the Obama administration that have expanded the federal government’s role in education even more.

It’s no coincidence that we’re getting worse at governing while we’re getting better at politicking. Americans are culturally divided anyway, but the political process is making the divisions worse. We’re bombarded by messages telling us our side is right and the other side is evil, so we tend to elect people who believe the same way, or at least pretend to believe it. Cooperative statesmanship becomes difficult when you’ve told your constituents that the other side wants to destroy America.

The political center – so vital to keeping the country on a forward path – has thus melted away. There are only 15 Democrats remaining in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. The declining number of Republican centrists have limited influence in their party. With so few in the center, Republicans and Democrats have completely different priorities and are working from different sets of facts. The primary organizing principle they all share, “How do I get re-elected?” is accomplished by a tactic they also have in common: Divide and conquer.

What can voters do? Make candidates worse at politicking by making it harder for them to categorize and manipulate us. If we say we’re independent, as a rising 42 percent of us told Gallup we are late last year, then we should act like it. Polls show that most of us who say we’re independent consistently lean one way or the other. So occasionally lean some other way – for example, by giving third party and independent candidates a chance. Research news websites that offer a different perspective than your own.

That will confuse the microtargeters. We also might learn something, or even change our minds on an issue. And in the process, we might get a better government.

A long shot campaigns for U.S. Senate

Armies of people are being paid to elect Sen. Mark Pryor or Rep. Tom Cotton to the U.S. Senate – campaign workers, political consultants, pollsters, state party staff, political action committee employees, etc.

Nathan LaFrance’s wife, on the other hand, designed his logo for his website.

LaFrance, 35, a Libertarian from Bella Vista, is also running for the Senate, along with Green Party candidate Mark Swaney of Huntsville. In a recent poll by Talk Business and Hendrix College, they each polled at 2 percent.

Pryor and Cotton spend most of their waking hours trying to win the election. Their taxpayer-supported offices enable them to campaign on a nearly full-time basis when Congress is not in session.

LaFrance doesn’t campaign until he comes home from his job at the Walmart home offices in Bentonville. He spends several hours each night doing campaign legwork and searching the internet for potential supporters and speaking opportunities. He says he’s spoken less than half a dozen times, but he did speak along with other candidates before a big crowd at Ashdown a couple of weeks ago.

His message is the same as his party’s. Libertarians would cut taxes along with spending on government programs, which sounds like Republicanism, but Libertarians would reduce government much more, including spending on the military. Their less-government philosophy extends to social issues. LaFrance, unlike Cotton or Pryor, supports gay marriage. He’s hoping that issue will win him support that ordinarily would go to Democrats.

The major parties, he said, “are two peas in a pod. They may have different special interest groups that they’re catering to, but they’re both in Washington catering to those special interest groups.”

With their millions of dollars in campaign contributions, Pryor and Cotton can flood the airwaves and the internet with ads. So can the groups that support them. Half the time I click on a YouTube video, I’m greeted first by Jerry and Wanda from Marion telling me that Obamacare cost them their insurance policy. In fact, I clicked on a video before writing that sentence just to test it, and there they were.

LaFrance, meanwhile, said he has raised between $2,000 and $3,000 from friends, family and his own personal contributions. His total war chest is about what Pryor and Cotton each can raise in a single phone call, but it’s enough to start thinking about buying yard signs and bumper stickers. The list of Libertarian supporters in Arkansas is small, and if there’s a national network of big rich donors, he’s not aware of it. LaFrance pointed out that Libertarians oppose big money in politics anyway.

For a third party candidate, victory realistically would look something like what Libertarian Robert Sarvis did in the recent Virginia governor’s race. On Election Day, he collected 6.5 percent of the vote, but he polled above 10 percent during the race and raised enough money to run television ads.

But LaFrance isn’t hoping for 6.5 percent. He says if he can increase his campaign war chest past $5,000 and can start polling at 5 percent, interest would increase in his campaign, maybe causing a snowball effect.

“I entered this race knowing that it would be a statistical long shot to win,” he said, “but I’ve entered it with the goal of winning, and that’s still my goal. … My goal is to win, and if I don’t achieve that goal, it’s going to be a disappointment.”

It’s a really long shot, but at least voters will have choices in the Senate race. There are four names on the ballot, not two.

Green Party nominates four to U.S. House

The Arkansas Green Party nominated candidates for all four U.S. House races in Little Rock today, including two candidates who have run multiple races.

Meanwhile, Fred Smith, the former Harlem Globetrotter whose attempt to run as a Democrat was voided by a judge’s ruling in April, will run for House District 50 as a Green.

The following candidates are running for the U.S. House:
First District – Jacob Holloway, a 24-year-old ASU student
Second District – Barbara Ward of Little Rock, who works at the Historic Arkansas Museum
Third District – Rebekah Kennedy, an attorney from Fort Smith. Kennedy ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2006; for U.S. Senate in 2008; and for attorney general in 2010
Fourth District – Josh Drake, an attorney from Hot Springs. This is Drake’s third consecutive attempt to be elected to this seat.

Independent Arkansas caught up with Kennedy, Drake and Ward at the convention and was able to get video interviews with Kennedy and Drake. The three were realistic about their chances. Drake even said, “I joke that if I had a chance of getting elected, my wife wouldn’t let me run.” But Kennedy in particular promised a vigorous campaign.

The three believe in Green Party values – stopping climate change, nationalized health care, a reduction of corporate influence in Washington. Drake was more passionate about health care while Kennedy focused on energy and the environment.

Asked why they aren’t running as liberal Democrats, they all said they believed in the Green Party. Kennedy and Drake asserted that there’s not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, anyway.

Kennedy said it would be more effective to compete with Democrats from the left than to simply lose to “prepicked” candidates in the primary. She said both parties are so poll-driven that they won’t do much to change the status quo – in particular concerning her primary issue, climate change.

“Instead of having an intelligent conversation among the people of this democracy about where we want to go in the future, we just have people rehashing the same things over and over, and unfortunately, it’s not true that you can leave well enough alone and never change everything and everything will stay the same,” she said.

Drake said, “You’d rather run with a party that stands for ideals that you can believe in, that you can be proud of, rather than always apologizing for the lesser of two evils that the Democratic Party has become.”

Smith’s earlier Democratic candidacy was thrown off the ballot after a circuit judge ruled that he had not provided proof that his felony conviction for theft had been dismissed or expunged by the filing deadline. It’s a long story, so if you want more, here it is.

All told, the Greens nominated 14 candidates in Arkansas and endorsed Dr. Jill Stein for president. Roseanne Barr – yes, that Roseanne Barr, was a candidate.

Occupy Little Rock’s concerns legitimate, but methods need to evolve

Several hundred Occupy Little Rock protestors marched through the streets of the state’s capital city Oct 15, and while lots of people, particularly Republicans, are dismissing them, they shouldn’t dismiss their concerns.

The protestors were a more diverse group than many would expect. I didn’t see a lot of the aimless young hippies they have been painted as being. They certainly weren’t a “mob,” as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called them, “anti-American,” as Herman Cain called them, or “the FLEA party,” in the words of a Democrat-Gazette columnist who wasn’t at the protest.

The protestors represented a variety of political persuasions, judging by the signs – everything from the Ron Paul-ian “End the Fed” to the Marxian “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The protestors directed their anger mostly at big corporations and the government, and I agreed with a lot of what they were saying. Any American who is not outraged at the bank bailout hasn’t been paying attention. As the columnist Nick Kristoff put it, “The banks have gotten away with privatizing profits and socializing risks.”

But we don’t want America to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Most corporations aren’t causing the world’s problems; they just provide needed goods and services and employ people.

Finally, if the Occupy Little Rock protestors really want to accomplish their goals – and right now, it’s not clear what their goals are beyond expressing their anger – they need to organize and work within the system as the TEA Party has done.

As they marched along the street, the protestors chanted, “This is what democracy looks like!” I thought, “Well, really, this is part of democracy, but democracy really looks like people voting, running for office, and contacting their legislators.” If Occupy Little Rock doesn’t evolve into that, it won’t accomplish much.