Press "Enter" to skip to content

Modern Whig Party has new interim national chair

The Executive Committee of the Modern Whig Party acting in accordance with the MWP bylaws appointed Andrew Evans interim National Chairman of the Modern Whig Party. Andrew has nearly 5 years of experience in working in national and state leadership capacity in the American Centrist Party, which united with the MWP in June. Andrew will serve in this capacity until June 30, 2011 at which time a national convention will elect a new chair and new leaders.

When asked about his plans for working with the Modern Whig Party Mr. Evans was enthusiastic and resolute; ” I know that the strength of America is her people and so does the Modern Whig Party. We will work to empower the American citizen to realize their power and responsibility in our democracy and to act upon it. I am excited to have this opportunity to help the Modern Whig Party and America. Our goal is to be an organization that focuses on the American citizen and puts forth pragmatic common sense solutions that give the American citizen the power and tools to take the lead in making America a nation of the people and a true world class example of good governance.”

About Post Author


  1. Green Party Conservative Green Party Conservative July 25, 2010

    If these centrists were serious they’d be working inside the Green Party.

    The Green Party has vastly more centrists on the ballots as candidates…

    Look to Arkansas, Illinois, Maine for proof.

    meanwhile we hear once in a while from this internet party not running candidates…

    I stick to my assertion oft made…

    Whigs are fake.

  2. Raymond Aute Raymond Aute July 25, 2010

    I’m not sure people like Cynthia McKinny would appeal to centrists. Her GP platform focusing on the destruction of Israel for example and other strong leftist rhetoric would probably turn most centrists off. Maybe the Greens are moving centrist in some circles, but the green brand in the US is that of a far left group and a far cry from the image of an environmentally sound policy platform.

  3. Ben Ben July 26, 2010

    Exciting stuff. I hope this will really help the Whig party move forward and have a stronger presence in government.

  4. Andrew Evans Andrew Evans July 26, 2010

    @Green Party Conservative. The two party system is certainly safe as long as we keep tearing down on each other. Calling the Whigs fake…I mean come on that is old style politics and that is what people are tired of.
    You can do better than that.

    Though, our organizations might not agree, we are still working for the same goal; the goal of giving Americans more of a voice and choice when it comes public service and government representation. We should be civil at least.

    In regards to the Modern Whig Party being an “internet party” I respectfully disagree, we have had members run for office, we have elected officials as members of the Modern Whig Party, and we have members actively serving their communities and nation, hardly just an “internet party”. I applaud you for your work with your organization. You are obviously trying to make America better in a way that works for you, keep at it. However, please refrain from the name calling against the Modern Whig Party. That is old school politics and people are tired of it.

    Debates on the issues are fine and welcome but enough with the name calling.

    Andrew Evans
    National Chairman
    Modern Whig Party

  5. True Centrist True Centrist July 28, 2010

    Congratulations to Andrew Evans, former National Chairman of the American Centrist Party, now interim National Chairman of the Modern Whig Party. I’m confident he will do an excellent job. Although no longer directly involved with the party, I believe Andrew has the support of Michael Lebowitz, a Founder of the Modern Whig Party, former National Chairman who resigned late in 2009 due to a conflict of interest with his legal profession. Elaine Stephans was the interim National Chairwoman after Mike’s departure, and I do not know what happened to her. It is my understanding that the party is mainly controlled by an executive committee of regional and state chairs as listed at the national website. It is my opinion that they should allow members to vote on new leadership, as well as to vote on issues and the direction the party will go in, rather than to dictate everything to members. Is it a party of a few at the top, or is it a party of the majority of members? Does a political party stay with its original course as if written in stone, or does it make course adjustments with the changing times?

    I started out as a Republican in a Republican dominated state, which elected a Democrat for Governor. Then one day when I was angered by a Republican’s position on welfare, I changed my affiliation to Democrat. I found the Democrats in that state to be too disorganized to be of any use. I then became registered as an Independent – which really means Unaffiliated Voter in that state, It does not allow any “third” political parties to be on the ballot, such as “minor” parties listed at DC’s Political Report In 2009, I took the World’s Smallest Political Quiz created by Libertarian “Advocates for Self Government” and scored in the center of the Centrist square. I’ve since then referred to myself as a true Centrist – not left, not right, but seeking a true third choice, although I’m willing to consider the best of both left and right worlds. I tend to think of “moderates” as being those who cannot decide between left or right. A political party cannot be built upon the position of “Maybe” as in the quiz answer options. I cannot totally condemn the Democrats, because I agree with them on some issues. Likewise, I cannot totally condemn the Republicans, because I agree with them on some issues. So it appears that the quiz simply averages me out to be a Centrist. This week I helped to start a Facebook “group” for Centrists

    I liked the American Centrist Party. I also liked the Modern Whig Party. They had a lot in common, and Wiki listed the Modern Whig Party as centrist. It was natural for them to form an alliance and merge into one party. I believe what actually happened is that the Modern Whig Party absorbed the American Centrist Party, since it kept its name and basic structure. Some opposed the merge, fearing a takeover by one side or the other, but it wasn’t like the scifi movie Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. Will the new party publish a true count of members who have remained since the merge?

    Late in 2009, when I began to seriously pay attention to the rise of the Tea Patty movement in the news, I asked a well known devout Centrist, Alan Nathan, what his opinion is about them. Much to my surprise, he defended them – not totally – mainly their anti big government position, which I too can agree on to some extent. However, the Tea Party is further to the right than the Republicans are, and have even condemned anti big government Libertarians for not being extreme enough and not far enough to the right. Obviously they dislike Democrats and any parties on the left. Knowing how they feel about Libertarians and Republicans, I must conclude they dislike Centrists even more. Even so, since the end of 2009, I’ve noticed an increasing number of Centrists reaching out to embrace the Tea Party. It makes no sense to me for them to do that. Just recently, the Illinois Whig Party openly offered – in an ad at the top of their website – state party positions to members of the Tea Party movement. After some protest, the ad was modified. But further, I noticed at Whig discussion boards a major division between those members who favor the Tea Party and those who do not. Those who are opposed to them are perceived by the executive committee to be flaming the Tea Party, which is not allowed anymore, and are then censored. I hate censorship. But in fairness to the Modern Whig Party, it appears to me that they are attempting to diplomatically reach out to the far right, as well as the far left, for any issues the left, middle, and right can agree on. If I understand it correctly, they are using their “Methodology over Ideology” plan to try to make that happen. Good luck with that. My advice is just don’t let it become like a religious cult of blind followers who have no real sense of direction anymore.

  6. jason jason July 30, 2010

    Anyone associated with Lebowitz is bad for the Modern Whigs.

  7. True Centrist True Centrist July 30, 2010

    Attention “jason”: Please explain why Michael Lebowitz is bad for the Modern Whigs. Your opinion will have more meaning and value if you present some facts to support it.

    Meantime, since you have opened that door, I have a few more items to present.

    The Modern Whig Party was “Founded by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the party has over 30,000 members nationally, with a sizable proportion affiliated with the American military.”

    Now, please do a Google Search with the key words: “Michael Lebowitz Tea Party.” Read the various relating articles. Next, do a Google Search with the key words: “Adam Kokesh Michael Lebowitz.” Please read the relating articles. Consider the known facts. There is nothing wrong with an attorney helping a friend as a client, even though that friend might have slightly different political positions. Draw your own conclusions.

    Like the Modern Whigs, the Tea Party is drawing members from the military. What does that say about the relationship that appears to be growing as result of Modern Whig Party leadership reaching out to the Tea Party, and Modern Whig Party members who are opposed to it and are being censored and silenced? It appears to be considered flaming over there for any member to post anything against the Tea Party overall and in general, but not when expressing a difference of opinion about a specific issue. That makes sense to some extent, even though I am opposed to censorship. Not all members speak for the party. Those who do speak for the Modern Whigs might at some point in time be working with the Tea Party on a specific issue they are in agreement on. Makes it difficult for one party to work with another on any issue when other members are flaming each other.

    Is the Modern Whig Party actually shifting far to the political right, or does it just appear that way? Is it only for certain issues the two parties might agree on and can work together on, or is it an overall transition?

    So it is known that the Modern Whigs are now reaching out to the far right, such as the Tea Party, perhaps just for specific issues they agree on. Given that, if the Modern Whigs are to still be considered “centrist” then it must be balanced out by Modern Whigs reaching out to the far left on other issues. I have yet to see an example of that, but such action could repair a growing rift within the Modern Whigs. It would be good if the Modern Whigs would sooner than later produce a list of issues, in three columns – left, center, and right – to clearly show where they stand – which issues they can work with the left on, which issues they can work with the right on, and any issues for which there might be a third choice centrist position.

    I know about the Florida Whig Party breaking away from the national party of the Modern Whigs. I don’t have all of the details. I know the Florida Whigs rejected the authority of the national party, and rejected the use of “Modern” in the name of the party. I believe there was some kind of personal and/or professional rift between Michael Lebowitz when he was National Chairman and Paul Truesdell who is the State Chairman of the Florida Whigs. It has been my impression that the Florida Whigs shifted politically to the far right on some issues.

    More states could leave the national party. If it continues to fragment, then it will have no real value at the national level in national elections. However, some states could become dominated by Whigs and win local elections, if they can get on the ballots in their states and break the two-party system.

    I don’t recall the exact numbers. About 80 million people voted Democrat in 2008, about 55 million voted Republican, and about 25 million were All Others. Of course when added up exactly the Democrats had slightly more than half of the votes. Even if the Republicans had formed an alliance with All Others, it would not have been enough to beat the Democrats. So within the All Others what chance do pathetically small “third” parties have without forming alliances at least on some major issues they agree on? It is my opinion that the leaders and members of extremist “third” parties live in a fantasy world by believing that they can someday win national elections. If a “third” political party is going to make any difference, it must have at least one third of the voters. How can they ever hope to have over 53 million voters at the national level? Not one “third” party today has even one million members. Most have far less than 100,000 members.

    More than one person has suggested doing away with all political parties. I like that idea. But we must be realistic. What system would we use in place of political parties? I can see use of the Internet as a means of making it possible today, ways that would not have been possible in the past without the Internet. Instead of parties, it would have to be geographical. Representative government is still needed, but we can move closer to a true democracy if every voter is allowed to vote via the Internet on top issues, rather than to leave everything to the whim of representatives who say one thing to get elected and then do another when in office. We should elect individuals based on their solid positions, rather than the political parties they are in. But we must keep in mind, positions on issues can change when new information comes to light.

    Bottom line, my opinion: We need more people like Michael Lebowitz, and Andrew Evans, who can be diplomatic, who can bridge the gaps, so that the right individuals can get elected and make life better for all Americans.

  8. NJ Centrist NJ Centrist August 15, 2010

    @Green Party Conservative. It is disheartening when these arbitrary partisan attacks occur. It shows that we can easily fall into the same tribal mindset the Democrats and Republicans have fallen victim to, a mindset that has demonstrated itself to be very destructive to our country.

    I don’t disparage Greens, Whigs or TeaPartiers. They are mostly sincere Americans who want to improve America. I may not agree with every position, but that’s not the point. It is important crack open the moneyed special interest’s hold on our government. Working together is what we need. If the Democrtats and Republicans honestly worked together, maybe we wouldn’t be in such bad shape.

    I think we are very fortunate to have people like Andrew Evans working so hard.

  9. Daniel Miller Daniel Miller August 26, 2010

    Please reveal all & tell all regarding what “methodology over ideology” really means. Please show us this Whig Academy website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.