Editorial Note: This opinion piece was submitted by Linda Curtis, founder of the League of Independent Voters of Texas, a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to representing and growing independent voters. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Independent Political Report. We present this content for its current and historical value toward better understanding the issues relevant to independent voters and American third parties.
Bobby Kennedy’s withdrawal from the Texas ballot is a big disappointment for Texans who wanted another choice. To be that choice, however, he had to fill the gaping wound left by the two-party forever war machine. He tanked his own campaign in October of 2023 by giving full-throated support to Israel. This told me he was incapable of galvanizing an independent electoral revolt.
Why RFK is off the Texas ballot.
RFK’s recent endorsement of Donald Trump is his choice. But, I’m beginning to believe a well-placed rumor that it was really Trump’s choice to get RFK off the Texas ballot for no reason other than to help Republican Ted Cruz secure his U.S. Senate seat against Democrat U.S. House Member Colin Allred. Sorry, Bobby, but most independents I know want at least one thing besides peace – electoral competition. Texas is becoming a swing state which will boost the strategic importance of independent voters.
Independent history is in order.
In 1991, the father of term limits, Jack Gargan, sparked a movement across the country known as “THRO – Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out,” It was Gargan who convinced Ross Perot to run for President as an independent in 1992. Their joint efforts ignited a mass electoral revolt. The movement was so vast Perot was polling at 45%, putting him in line to win the presidency in the three-way race against incumbent George H. Bush and Bill Clinton. Suddenly, Perot dropped out but came back months later to receive a whopping 19% of the vote. It was the largest vote for an independent since Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive “Bull Moose” Party ticket in 1912.
After the election, Perot set about to build United We Stand America (UWSA), a huge nonprofit, nonpartisan citizens lobby. Ten thousand people, hundreds of major party political leaders and officials – a virtual Who’s Who in American politics — showed up at the UWSA convention in 1995. Over 1000 members of the media from throughout the world were there. The newly elected President Bill Clinton set about to balance the federal budget, Perot’s key policy concern.
I was a close colleague of Lenora Fulani, who in 1988 became the first woman and African-American to get on the ballot for president in all 50 states. In 1988 and in 1992, it was more difficult to achieve ballot access. Fulani did it with $1.3 million. In 1992, Perot brilliantly invested heavily in volunteer development. His volunteers blew through ballot access requirements, shocking the political establishment and national media.
After the election, Fulani traveled around the country to talk Perot supporters into trying to convince Perot to invest in building a new political party. In short order, it became the Reform Party USA in 1996. UWSA fell by the wayside.
In four short years the Reform Party died. Our hopes were dashed for a new kind of party that would build off the dreams for UWSA’s cross-partisan solution-driven policy-making. The failure was in public with an embarrassing struggle for the mike at our own press conference. It was painful, but we learned a lot.
Most important, we learned that independents can reach consensus, but we cannot be shoe-horned into a political party.
Today, I ask us all to look in the mirror. We must ask deeper questions about what we are missing on the road to a multi-party system in America. RFK at least reminded us of America’s desire for electoral competition. What if United We Stand America stayed on the scene? Might we have learned over the last 32 years what vehicles were necessary to unite, organize and mobilize 50% of the electorate and blow the two-party system’s door down?
After hundreds of millions invested in the RFK campaign, and a number of new party formations like the Unity Party, Unite America, No Labels, and the Forward Party, why is this question still on the table? The question remains, “Who will organize the independents?” I believe “We will” is the answer, the people in the mirror, the independent voters, of course! If you agree, I hope you will join me to answer these questions. How do we get independent voters the tools to self-organize, what are the vehicles to use and when? Back to work, y’all.
Homework:
Watch this interview of RFK VP candidate Nicole Shanahan by Tom Bilyeu on Impact Theory. She seems to get it on war and economy. Is Shanahan a future leader of the independent movement?
I found this critique (scroll down about 1/3 of the way) by Richard Winger (Ballot Access News Editor) of Unite America’s Nick Troiano book, The Primary Solution: Rescuing Our Democracy from the Fringes, helpful in reviewing some of the electoral reforms that are confused and, to our point, incapable of galvanizing a movement like term limits did.
Read West Texas oil and gas attorney and independent Republican colleague, Sarah Stogner’s article in The Hill, “RFK Dealt a Huge Blow to Americans Who Want a Third Party.”
Speakers and topics at the first and only United We Stand America conference (1995) are under this link.
Howdy Bruce!
Sorry, pal, but gotta say I disagree with your framing — though I believe in free speech even for the “insane.” 🙂
What bothers me is how we don’t allow people to advocate for their candidates, no matter how shitty they are.
It’s all mudslinging, demonization, character assassination and all things ugly in our discourse. IOW, there ain’t no stinking discourse.
I worked for RFK, who I knew was a very flawed man because I thought (and still do) that his supporters deserve to be heard. That he cut them off at the pass is “insane,” but ultimately his choice.
Now, what the hell are WE gonna do?
No sane person wants Collin Allred anywhere near the US Senate.
Thanks Ron and Debbie:
Ron, what we didn’t have during the Perot era was a system imploding AND we didn’t have crowd funding options. Moreoever, civic education is (at least for now) best done through a practice not so easily practice in the traditional classroom. We have to create a new practice, look for some honest seed funding and do just what the best of independent journalists are doing — develop a large donor/subscription base.
Debbie, I like your attitude towards the grassroots. It’s too easy to forget that which Perot at least preached — look in the mirror to find the solution.
Thank you both. Linda
Hi Linda-
towards the end of my time in office as a former state rep/state senator from Colorado I advocated for the importance of teaching “civic engagement” and “critical thinking” in our high schools…of course my efforts received a lot of platitudes but little else… I agree it’s important and bring it up on the Congressional campaign trail too…
however, the ‘chicken or egg’ scenario can be addressed at the same time we encourage and support better candidates running and being adequately funded… if 50% of voters in a state are unaffiliated – that speaks volumes…it’s a rejection of the status quo…
I suppose some billionaire or several millionaires will finally be compelled to act when that number reaches 60-70%….by then a ‘tipping point’ would be reached where the sheer inanity of knowing a small minority controls the political power over the vast majority brings the issue to the fore…. right now the $ plays both major parties…. which is also why they are reliant on it enough to not really rock the boat and end the gravy train $$$$$$.
despite our best efforts, I’m just saddened to realize that time may not approach until after we’re all long gone…
ron tupa
Think outside the box.
Think globally, act locally.
There are many prospering countries/democracies in the world that support multiple parties, many of which get candidates into office and manage to make further reforms. These countries have high voter turnout and engaged citizens.
We don’t need to fight the duopoly so much as open eyes to the grassroots efforts that it took for those other countries to get where they are. We know our system has failed, long ago. When we, the people, can stop pretending the US is the end all-be all of “democracy”…let go of our ego, we can be open to solutions that are proven elsewhere.
Howdy Ron,
Best of luck in your independent race. I like all that you mention on your issues.
Our only difference is that I DO think breaking out of the two-party system IS rocket science, or more like “rocket art.” Despite 40 years of trying, and ever-increasing numbers of Americans who identify as independent, we continue to fail. Failure is not the problem. It’s trying to repeat the same failures.
I am advocating for the development of the independent voters, themselves. This involves a practice, an activity, of civic engagement from the bottom up — local, regional, state and federal. There is no concerted effort to involve INDEPENDENT OR NON-ALIGNED VOTERS in the civic life of a community. I believe the only way to really educate voters is to involve them. How do we involve them is my life’s commitment, something I practice.
You can’t just plop a candidacy or party on top of the problems or misguided policies and corruption. Even if you win, you can’t change things. Bernie Sanders is proof to that statement.
Thanks for the engagement!
Nuna, Linda, Chris –
I beg to differ…this isn’t rocket science… what unites MOST anti-duopoly citizens / activists?
1) Getting money out of politics and/or reducing the influence of special interests
2) Term limits and / or stopping the revolving door of Congresspeople/Senators who then become lobbyists
3) Enact reforms that allow more citizen input on decisions / votes in Congress (i.e. use tools that allow for instant feedback by the public / constituents before taking votes…I developed an ‘app’ that did JUST THAT called “digitdemos” – look it up on youtube) THESE ARE NON-PARTISAN / GOOD GOVERNMENT reforms that I bet 60-75% of the public would support……
the rest is secondary…. and I don’t expect everyone else to be on the same page, but surely on issues of taxing and spending we can find a solution MOST citizens will accept…??? you don’t have to let “perfect” be the enemy of the good….you just need a majority of citizens behind you on other issues …. for example, one of my big issues is taming the DEBT/DEFICIT just like Perot wanted…and I would back a constitutional amendment for a BBA (balanced budget amendment)…I also think tax fairness is popular with a majority of the public…and protection of civil liberties / privacy issues, etc…… sure, there will be naysayers but…start with #s 1-3 above
Ron Tupa
Independent Unity Party Candidate for US CONGRESS
colorado congressional district 7
rontupaforcongress.com
The only things you will ever get a large number of people to agree on, is that they want an alternative to the duopoly. As soon as you become any more specific than that, you start to lose people again. But if you don’t become more specific than that, you will also not gain many votes, due to having no platform. That was the case in 1992, that has been the case since, and that is still the case today.
So then it becomes a balancing act to minimize the number of people you alienate to such an extent that they’d rather not vote at all than vote for you. This is made even more challenging by the fact that there are always other third party and independent candidates competing for those anti-duopoly votes. Since your platform can never be more universally appealing than each of those other non-duopoly candidates, your only hope is to attract anti-duopoly votes by being the most realistically viable non-duopoly candidate, i.e. the most bland and universally least unappealing.
And that is exactly what we see, when we look at the relatively successful non-duopoly candidates of the past century or so. For example, RFK did a good job at balancing his pro-Israel and anti-gene therapy stances against his climate hoax and pro-abortion madness. Similarly, Nader tempered his eco-fascism with a populist appeal of returning to domestic issues that normal voters actually care about. Even totalitarian leftists like Ross Perot and Henry Wallace, managed to reduce their bullshit and put on a more broadly appealing big tent facade while campaigning.
THAT is why they did relatively well for non-duopoly candidates (which unfortunately is still quite bad compared to duopoly candidates): They knew how to draw attention to the attractive parts of their platform and divert attention away from the unattractive parts, based on who their audience was at any given moment.
But then a question is, whether anyone should want somebody so “flexible” in power, i.e. someone without any actual convictions beyond a strong “Wille zur Macht” (“Will to Power”), or at least without the honesty to stand for any convictions (which, if they did, would cost them support)? On the upside, it can hardly be any worse than the uniparty. On the downside, it will probably be hardly any better either.
Actually meaningful alternative candidates (e.g. Alan Keyes), could never draw a significant number of votes in this stage of our country’s deterioration, because they are too honest to ever have a sufficiently broad appeal. And so instead, you end up false alternatives (e.g. Ross Perot), who are almost entirely interchangeable with the two faces of the uniparty. There is no simple solution to this: not today, not 32 years ago. The only way this can change is if Americans return to moral values, which they seem to have no intention of doing any decade soon.
Hi to Chris and Ron, from Linda Curtis.
Why is this issue — herding cats, aka independent voters — still on the table (at least my table) since Perot ’92?
The reason there is little investment in independent politics might be because we failed to learn something from the Perot electoral revolt and build on that.
Parties and candidates generally narrow the movement — they are the cart that comes after the horse.
We didn’t invest enough in the horse, that is building loose-knit associations for independents to find the “sweet spots” for organizing them. This left us vulnerable to candidates looking to circumvent the primary — like Joe Lieberman who went on to found No Labels and in this election, I’m sorry to say, RFK.
There is wisdom in the crowd, but who’s organizing the crowd and how do we do that? We still have time to try to answer that question.
Organizing unaffiliated voters is like trying to rename a miscellany category to more accurately identify the contents of it. Among the small percentage of unaffiliated voters who do have strongly held views there is no uniformity in those positions.
Not sure why this is still even a discussion?
I was a young College Democrat when Perot and Clinton ran…I supported Perot’s quest to start a 3rd party (for the sake of competition/health of our little ‘d’ democracy)…he got 23% in the state of CO and I was happy to see it…
I became a state rep / state senator for CO and passed legislation helping minor parties and unaffiliated candidates gain ballot access….
I served in office for 14 years as a Democrat and became unaffiliated in 2023…
I am now running as an (independent) unity party candidate for US CONGRESS in colorado’s congressional district 7…
I’m pretty sure any person who has been active in politics for the last 20-30 years understands the need, the problems, and the solutions…
What we don’t have is an organized effort by people with money to help launch the effort…
Until that happens it’s much ado about nothing and amounts to just ‘talk’…which is what everyone has done for 30+ years….
Ron Tupa
rontupaforcongress.com
A former UWSA thinking that having their quango around for another 32 years would somehow help identify a nucleus around which to crystalize at least 50% of the electorate, would be lacking the humility and kindness required to acknowledge that there is no easy answer, that only the Lord God – whether through liberation and denazification, or through more subtle Divine Intervention – can organize independents.
And I can assure you that the Lord God’s answer does not include the genocide of his first chosen people and the invasion and the occupation of their land. Nor does it include infringing on people right to bear arms, promoting sodomy and other crimes against creation, the murder of infant children, robbing people in the name of redistributing wealth and protecting the environment.
Thank God and praise Him that at least Russia and Belarus, and to a lesser extent Hungary and Israel, still have humble and kind leaders in this day and age, for they are our best hope at ending the fascist west’s forever wars.
You still have the snippet “you will join me to answer these questions. How do we get independent voters the tools to self-organize, what are the vehicles to use and when? Back to work, y’all.” Repeated twice above “homework.”
Mr. Ziobro, I like your comment. Earthquakes are sometimes unintended consequences from bad decisions we humans make.
Nuna, you’re entitled to your opinions, of course. For me, they tell more of the story of what helped kill (for now) the inevitable breaking of our two-party “doom loop.” Too many of us lack the humility and kindness required to acknowledge that maybe no one has an easy answer. Might this be your/our contribution to forever wars?
Listening, thinking and heart are required. I wish all commenters and readers well.
Thank you for pointing out the problem with the links. They should hopefully work now.
“He tanked his own campaign in October of 2023 by giving full-throated support to Israel.”
On the contrary, he boosted his campaign incredibly by offering people an alternative to the anti-Israel uniparty.
“RFK’s recent endorsement of Donald Trump is his choice.”
It was also a betrayal of everything he had run on up until then, and everyone who had supported him, donated, campaigned, petitioned, etc. Sure, he was legally allowed to make such an endorsement, but that doesn’t make it morally justifiable. Especially since as recently as a fortnight ago, he was still very clear that he was not dropping out of the race and he wanted people to vote for him, only conceding swing states to Trump in a (questionable) strategy to foil Harris, who had screwed his chances of getting elected.
“Texas is becoming a swing state which will boost the strategic importance of independent voters.”
Is it? It seems to me that Texas has been dominated Democrats and RINOs who share over 99% the same agenda, since Bush’s “war on terror” at the latest. The mass exodus of socialists from California, New York, etc. who are bringing with them the same ideology that ruined their states to begin with, is only increasing that blue-shift.
“The newly elected President Bill Clinton set about to balance the federal budget, Perot’s key policy concern.”
Clinton set about to pay lip-service to Perot’s concern. In practice, he continued the same “voodoo economics” of every president since Eisenhower, though admittedly, he did so less egregiously than Carter, Reagan, the elder Bush or any of his successors.
“I was a close colleague of Lenora Fulani”
Oh, you poor thing! I’m so, so sorry for you!
“In four short years the Reform Party died. Our hopes were dashed for a new kind of party that would build off the dreams for UWSA’s cross-partisan solution-driven policy-making.”
Given Perot’s positions on gun control, AIDS research, gay rights, abortion, taxation and environmentalism, thank God that it died when it did: not a moment too soon.
“We must ask deeper questions about what we are missing on the road to a multi-party system in America.”
That’s easy. Altruistic and moral leadership like that of Lukashenko and Putin, Bolsonaro and Pinochet, Franco and Salazar, or even too a much lesser extent like that of Orban and Netanyahu. We need to purge the political pool of totalitarians and egotists, and return to the values our country was founded.
“What if United We Stand America stayed on the scene?”
Then there would be another just one more quango controlled by the uniparty. The UWSA was nothing better than the duopoly parties then, and it wouldn’t be any better now. Just like how the overwhelming majority of third parties in the US today, are largely if not completely interchangeable with the uniparty: they are all totalitarian, they are all collectivist, they are all statist, they are all socialist, etc., they just present themselves wearing slightly different masks.
“Might we have learned over the last 32 years what vehicles were necessary to unite, organize and mobilize 50% of the electorate and blow the two-party system’s door down?”
Is there anything that 50% of the electorate can agree on? Anything besides wanting alternatives to the uniparty? You didn’t need the UWSA or the Reform Party, to try and answer those questions. If you don’t have an answer after 32 years without, then you wouldn’t have found one after 32 years with them either.
“Who will organize the independents?”
The Lord God. Nobody else will, nobody else can.
“How do we get independent voters the tools to self-organize, what are the vehicles to use and when?”
The most obvious means would be a Russian liberation and denazification of this fascist hell hole.
“Is Shanahan a future leader of the independent movement?”
No. Good though the interview is, Shanahan is even more unreliable than Kennedy.
————-
The word “mike” should probably be “mic”, unless that is a Texas dialect thing I am unfamiliar with.
The tail end “you will join me to answer these questions. How do we get independent voters the tools to self-organize, what are the vehicles to use and when? Back to work, y’all.” accidentally got repeated at the end.
The links in the homework section currently don’t work for me.
“Texas is becoming a swing state which will boost the strategic importance of independent voters.”
If that happens, it would be a political earthquake, causing a tectonic political shift for the next generation.