| ||||
|
|
||||
|
From our Members: 1. What does "independent" mean to you? Someone who finds that their political views are such that they are not well represented by either of the major political parties. There are pieces of both parties that appeal to me, but I cannot compromise my principles so much that I would throw my hat in with either one. Politics is the art of compromise, and I would be willing to give up on a few issues, but as an example the hold of the religious right on the Republicans and the unions and trial lawyers on the Democrats drives me away from both. I’m an independent because I see the polarity of the parties as unproductive, often resulting in poor policymaking. Thus, “independent” to me does not involve having a set of concrete ideologies on issues, but demonstrating a willingness to find the best possible solutions to problems given the status quo, regardless of party affiliation. It is being forward-looking and pragmatic, and should imply a freedom to make the right decisions even if they’re unpopular, or don’t toe a party line. Independent to me means not letting a particular ideology or/and partisanship form your opinions. Political parties should not monopolize opinions. To me, to be “independent” means to not be beholden to a particular ideology or political party in one’s approach to 1) public leadership, and 2) the building of solutions to public problems. The two are related, but I view the former as dealing specifically with the choice of our public leaders, while the latter refers to actual policymaking. A true independent, in my mind, is willing to grant every candidate for an elective or appointed office careful consideration – he/she will not write off candidates who carry (or not) a particular label. As regards policymaking, an independent doesn’t formulate his or her position according to a party line (Democratic, Republican, conservative, liberal, libertarian, progressive, etc.). An independent’s primary interest is simply finding the best solutions to problems, whatever the solutions may be. It means being a bit freer to examine, evaluate and promote- with a more open mind- what does and does not work in public policy with a view to creating and improving public policy as an evolutionary process. Critical stance. Not beholden or committed to any particular ideology or doctrine beyond a commitment to finding pragmatic solutions to society’s problems. Capable of thinking for oneself rather than deferring to a party line or ideological formula.
2. Why are you interested in the Independent Caucus? The view of political scientists that I've talked with is that an independent is someone who votes on personality and other shallow issues. I see this caucus as a way of 1) Convincing myself that this is inaccurate, 2) Sharing ideas with others to develop a stronger basis from which to argue an independent point of view, and 3) To discover if independents can truly be in a movement or if the fact that there is no unifying platform (and so many viewpoints) makes that impossible T Policymakers should have the promotion of best-policy as an ideal. Prior to the founding of the IC, I was shocked that we have virtually no non-partisan groups at the K-school involved in political thought and political activity. We are a vital outlet for this. The most important thing we can do is promote independent THOUGHT - the practice and process of non-partisan policy creation. In August, I went to a session founding the Progressive Caucus. I met a group of people, most of whom labeled themselves left-wing and progressive, whose approach in general was to be in opposition. The answer to failures of capitalism was anti-capitalism etc. I do not believe you need a revolution or revolutionary ideas to pursue better policies. As a non-left wing'er I also feel entitled to come up with alternatives. The answers are often already there, but people/politicians some times cannot find them, because they are blindfolded by their partisanship. In the Independent Caucus we could have useful discussions on how to eliminate the negative aspects of partisanship and benefit more from good ideas raised inside or outside of political parties. I am a strong believer in the importance of young people – and people in general – translating their commitment to public service from the world of volunteerism (important in itself) into the world of politics and policymaking. While many young people don’t see the link between the two realms, others do, but the partisan nature of American politics leaves them disaffected. They realize they don’t fit into either camp, and they don’t want to “play the game.” I believe that revitalizing civic engagement in America depends on our creating a space where citizens believe they can engage with policy and politics that extends beyond our current bipolar structure. In the long term, I hope such spaces can produce public leaders whose agendas place good policy – and not party politics – at the top of their agendas. Closer to home, I would like very much for a space to exist at the Kennedy School for those of us who fiercely reject categorization according to a particular ideology or party. Much of the political discourse at the Kennedy School seems to occur along party lines… and sometimes the parties on each side don’t seem to do a whole lot of listening to each other. I would like to see room at KSG for discussions among people who may possess different ideas, but who are willing to at least listen to those on the “other side(s).” Such a space might be created by independents, but would welcome people on different sides of the Democratic/Republican or liberal/conservative divide who are interested in true dialogue. To see what potentially like minded people care about and find out if there is a future for independent candidates Because I can speak my mind in or through it.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
