2010: A New Odyssey

Don’t send out the St. Bernard…I’m still alive. After intentionally burning my candle at both ends and anywhere else it would burn, I have purposely simplified my life for 2010.

I’ve intentionally refrained from offering much unsolicited comment since the election. That’s mostly a result of some personal circumstances that dictate my energies be directed elsewhere, but also from a desire to reenergize myself after the exhausting demands of last year’s campaign. Additionally, I thought I’d try to avoid criticizing the new administration while they rolled out their vision for town affairs. However, I’m not particularly pleased about most of what they’ve unveiled and implemented so far. It appears it’s business as usual – where politics, favors, and rhetoric continue to rule the day.

Eventually I’ll post the final installment to my election analysis, but lately I’ve been contemplating the best path forward for independent politics. Current election law makes the scenario of duplicating our local effort very challenging if not unlikely. The No New Tax Party (basically Rotterdam’s version of the Tea Party) was a ballot line that ceased to exist the day after the election. To keep it or any other independent ballot line alive in coming elections will require a level of unparalleled motivation and commitment to collect the necessary signatures. It is a daunting task and the effort required is incomprehensible to anyone that hasn’t tried to do it.

As far as the local effort is concerned, these are among what I consider to be the key elements going forward:

• What individual will lead this effort?


• Is this individual capable of mustering the necessary manpower?


• Can he motivate enough voters?


• Does he have the courage of his convictions?


• Is he knowledgeable on the specific local issues that face us?


• Does he have a plan for addressing those issues beyond the rhetoric?

These questions can be asked equally about any candidate but they become particularly important when looking for that elusive alternative…otherwise, why even go through the trouble of creating an alternative? I will be curious to see if a local independent line gets created again for this or any other election, or will “independent” hopefuls simply seek the path of least resistance and operate within the entrenched two-party system?

The answer to that question may be reflected in what has been going on nationally. Last week, Tea Party Nation organized a controversial tea party convention that in my opinion was not reflective of the grass root intentions of the majority of tea party participants. From the questionable motivations of the event organizer to the role of Sarah Palin, the convention seemed to be a perverted version of real tea party sentiment.

My friend at Poli-Tea has numerous worthwhile commentaries and analysis on the relationship of independent politics and the two-party system. The links below are to a few of his more recent posts that I found interesting and I hope you’ll explore them too.

On the Inevitable Failure of Strategic Infiltration, or, the Degeneration of Tea Party Activists into Petty Party Functionaries
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-inevitable-failure-of-strategic.html

All Jokes are Half Truths and the Joke is on You: if You Support Democrats or Republicans, You are the Problem
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/01/all-jokes-are-half-truths-and-joke-is.html

Already Dead: the Democratic-Republican Partisan Paradigm in the Age of the Independent Voter
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/01/already-dead-democratic-republican.html

Pretend-ependents and the Tea Party Movement
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/02/pretend-ependents-and-tea-party.html

Tea Party Revolution Suffers Defeat at the Hands of Red-Coated Loyalists to the Two-Party State, Some Carry On the Work of Real Opposition
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/02/tea-party-revolution-suffers-deafeat-at.html

Post-Election Analysis: Icarus Falling

Part 2 in a series


Thought I was different and it seems I’m just the same
As a game I put my hand over the flame
Thought I was smarter as I flew into the sun
But it turned out the way it does with everyone

---lyrics from the song Moth on the album Revelations by Audioslave

This isn’t the first time I’ve highlighted noteworthy lyrics by Chris Cornell. I’ve always been a student of the lesson of man and his limitations. There can often be many different motivations for reaching beyond them. In my case, I’m guilty of being an idealist. Idealism often leads to the pursuit of lofty goals but it’s also a path that leads directly into the sun. Tough gig.

The election is over. I lost. The alternative choice we had hoped to provide by creating the independent No New Tax Party ballot line was not fully embraced by the electorate, although we pulled some significant numbers in spite of prognostications otherwise. In the end, it simply wasn’t enough.

The ramifications of our involvement though have caused many to speculate that “we split the vote” and were responsible for the paradigm shift of power in the town. A Republican supermajority was transformed into a Democrat supermajority overnight. It was a Democrat sweep of epic proportion.

So what does that mean? First, it means some people (ousted Republican incumbents and their leadership) are really, really p*ssed. They attribute the loss solely to the existence of the No New Tax Party. They assume that we split the vote and ALL our votes, or at least the majority of them, would’ve gone to the Republican candidate. Maybe, but I don’t agree. The argument is fair enough but I think it’s too simplistic. Here’s why: it doesn’t account for the fact that we appealed to independent voters, some that may not have even voted otherwise and also that we commanded many Democrat votes as well. It also doesn’t account for the impact of an ill-advised Republican attempt to create a new town-wide tax district prior to the election. In other words, it’s plausible that the Republicans lost because of their own missteps. There is an element of party arrogance that hasn’t been acknowledged. People definitely wanted and voted for “change.” We tried to provide it in the form of the No New Tax Party but instead the voter opted for the “change” offered by the Democrats. In my opinion, the Republicans would’ve lost the election either way, albeit by a narrower margin perhaps.

Let’s take a closer look at my race in particular. Remember, I won the primary in September to secure the Republican ballot line and thus, essentially returned the dynamic in my race to the traditional dynamic of two-party politics. I was competing in a separate, special election rolled into the general election. My opponent was a Democrat, who also had the Conservative endorsement. I’ve been the recipient of some Republican leadership wrath because they lost control of the town when their candidates fell to the Democrats. They blame me. I don’t believe the blame is warranted but I understand how I make a convenient scapegoat. If the Republican leadership really was interested in keeping seats, they would’ve supported me after I rightfully won the Republican primary. They didn’t. Moreover, a prominent Republican state assemblyman appeared on my Democratic opponent’s campaign mailer days before the general election. I lost by 572 votes and actually commanded more total votes than either of the two big dog Republican candidates running for the 4 year terms in the other race. Not too shabby in my book. Maybe some party support could’ve changed the outcome?

Let’s forget about the “what-if’s?” I lost. I only had a Democratic opponent. There wasn’t anyone else “to split the vote” unless I want to count my Republican primary opponent who stayed in the race on two minor party lines and garnered 403 votes. My point is the night belonged to the Democrats likely no matter what. Oddly, that point is in the same instant scoffed at by the Republican leadership when it’s being used to explain their defeat, but then offered as the reason for my defeat had I had their support or not.

We created the No New Tax Party in response to a perception that voters wanted an alternative. Undeniably, some did. I garnered 3098 votes unofficially in my race. I suspect about half of those were cast on the No New Tax Party line. Overall, however, the voter dynamic we envisioned and were relying on to win the election never materialized as evidenced by our individual totals on our independent line. We failed to motivate enough unaffiliated voters to come out and vote for us. We also didn’t pull enough from the two parties.

Failure? In some views, yes. Not in mine. I’ve always believed failure is an integral part of eventual success. Let’s consider it victory delayed. We most certainly lost, but we also had many noteworthy accomplishments that hopefully, strengthen the foundation of future third party independent campaigns.

Next series installment: Inside the Numbers

Post-Election Analysis: The Agony of Defeat and the Thrill of Victory

Part 1 of a series

My campaign experience, like probably most others, was a series of ups and downs. Yet, some of my biggest ups and downs were superimposed on each other. The euphoria of securing enough petition signatures to file our ballot petition was tempered by my daughter unexpectedly being hospitalized. The triumph of winning my Republican primary was muted by the somber news of a good friend’s death in the moments before results started coming in. It seemed inevitable that joy would be elusive for me in this pursuit. On Election night, it became clear to me early that the trend of the result tallies were going against me and that I would eventually lose. I had set out to win. Expectations from five months of grueling, non-stop effort were evaporating with each district that reported. Surprisingly, the disappointment of this trough passed almost instantly, countered perfectly by a peak; the joy of my daughter’s impending wedding. Throughout the campaign, I spoke about priorities. Personally, mine are back in alignment.

Candidate Forum

The Schenectady County League of Women Voters will be sponsoring a Rotterdam Candidate Forum on Tuesday, October 20th at the Rotterdam Branch Public Library. The event is scheduled to begin at 6:15 pm and is scheduled to end at 8:15 pm.

This is an event I have attended several times in the past as a voter. I’ve always found it beneficial in some regard. This time, of course, I will be there as a candidate. I hope my views can offer the same benefit of helping voters make their choice.

I like this event because it tries to assemble all the candidates for office in one place, gives them each an opportunity to briefly lay out their message, and provides those in attendance to ask the candidates questions.

Nearly the entire Town of Rotterdam Town Board is being contested, with races for Town Supervisor and 3 Town Council seats. This year the event takes on even more significance because of the inclusion of the No New Tax Party slate of candidates. Voters will get to choose from 3 candidates for each slot instead of the usual two.

It’s a great opportunity to get better informed on the important issues facing the town and the vision each candidate has for addressing them. I hope you’ll attend.

Taking Stock

With 3 weeks to Election Day, I thought I’d take a moment to reflect on a few things. Becoming a candidate for office and subjecting myself to the rigors and scrutiny of campaigning has reinforced my distaste for many aspects of status quo politics. But that reinforcement only reaffirmed that I took the right path when I decided to get more involved. From the very beginning for me, it’s been about “changing the game” rather than “playing it.” I’ve been fortunate to be able to remain true to the unorthodox approach I set for myself when I jumped into the mix so my integrity is still intact anyway. (I’ve offered other early reflections in a guest post on Poli-Tea a few weeks ago.)

By the way, I succeeded in winning my primary in September for the Republican ballot line, knocking off the hand-picked candidate chosen by the party. I’m told that has significance because with a major party line “I might be able to win.” I find that pretty amusing. I don’t attribute the same significance to securing that ballot line as others do. I think the independent No New Tax Party ballot line we created is more powerful than it gets credit for. If elected, I hope that’s where I garner the votes.

Here’s how I view the significance of winning the Republican primary. It’s a giant win for the credibility of the No New Tax Party candidate slate. It’s proof that our message is resonating with voters. It’s proof that message and effort can trump party boss agenda. In addition, it was good strategy because it eliminated one of our opponents earlier. In the end, labels shouldn’t matter. Whoever gets elected is supposed to represent all the residents, not a select few.

That last sentence brings to mind a question posed to me at a recent Rotterdam Business Association dinner we were invited to speak at. The questioner essentially acknowledged and appreciated the alternative choice the No New Tax Party candidates would provide voters but wanted to know how we’d be any different at being able to get along with each other or someone else in order to actually facilitate solutions. It was a great question. In one swoop, it encompassed all the hope and promise our slate of candidates offered while also introducing the entrenched underlying doubts and fears about politicians promising change. Being able to overcome differences and produce results is always the wild card factor. I answered the question the best I knew how in the moment and I hope it sufficed but I haven’t stopped asking it in my head. Just the fact the question was posed demands one goal must be being able to consistently put aside partisanship and simply produce the results that are needed. In the end, it all comes back to shedding labels for real and working for the public good, not that of some special interest. For me, the question itself now serves as a constant reminder of that obligation.

Our third party involvement in this election has already impacted policy and actions of the other candidates. The current administration originally sought to unilaterally impose a new town-wide tax district. The No New Tax Party candidates were the only ones to take an early position against it and publicly oppose it. Our outspokenness contributed to sending the issue to a future public referendum to decide the matter. The No New Tax Party candidates advocate a 0% tax levy increase for the next 2 years. That entire notion was originally dismissed by the current administration that said that approach was both impossible and irresponsible, yet they eventually followed that with a tentative budget proposal that yields no tax increase. (Isn’t it funny how it suddenly becomes possible in an election year?) Our other opposition adopted a campaign flyer banner of the Tax Cut Team. It seems like the major parties want to be more like us all of a sudden. That tells me we’ve been listening to the voters better than they have because we were there first and we were there early. Win or lose, we’ve definitely been successful in shaping the discussion. But we were never in it to simply have influence on the dialogue. We’ve always been in it to win and affect the change people want. In 3 weeks, we’ll find out.

Civil Discourse

The Rotterdam Town Board conducted a public hearing last week regarding the proposed new tax district. The room was filled with plenty of concerned citizens with differing views on the subject. What really made this meeting significant in my mind was the constructive nature of it. Many people spoke up. Views were expressed passionately. Several different suggestions were offered. It was an informative encounter, and I think, a productive exchange of ideas. That was possible because it seemed that people were listening to each other. If we want to find lasting solutions, then it has to begin by respecting the views of those that disagree with you. Civil discourse is an essential element to effectively solving not only this problem, but every problem and sadly, that kind of discourse is usually elusive. The other night everyone seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the issue at hand and the need to find an acceptable solution. When all is said and done, I’m confident we’ll find that solution. No one has a monopoly on being “right” and if we really want to make progress on the difficult issues facing us then we’re going to have to be able to respectfully explore all the alternatives available to find the best path forward.

Below is a copy of the remarks I delivered at the public hearing expressing what I think is the best path forward on one of those difficult issues.


TOWN BOARD REMS HEARING 092309


A. I support REMS remaining as our ambulance provider under the right conditions.

B. I DO NOT support a tax district to accomplish that objective.


While I admire and appreciate the effort and dedication that the new administration of REMS and others have demonstrated in their progress toward improving financial affairs at REMS, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people in town are against paying more taxes.

Currently, we’re assisting REMS through the general fund – in essence, our current tax dollars have been reallocated to provide this support. That is an approach that appears to be working and I support it in the short-term. In the longer term, I’d prefer to see REMS become self-sufficient.

As a community, I think we all agree that REMS provides a vital public safety service and as a result, we rightly have provided financial assistance through the General Fund. Yes, of course, that’s your tax dollar. But it is a reallocation of your CURRENT tax dollar, not a new tax. IF, as a community, we are in agreement that REMS provides a VITAL, NECESSARY function, then General Fund assistance is the appropriate approach. I believe that approach provides better transparency and accountability than a new tax district would. I also think it allows for quicker financial adjustments to be made if necessary to maintain public safety.

I don’t think we should be in a rush to increase the tax burden, and in no way do I mean to imply that you have not considered matters carefully. But I don’t accept the underlying premise being made about what the tax district will ultimately cost.

---If the cost is expected to be so minimal, then why is the tax district necessary at all?

---If the cost is expected to rise, then isn’t the new tax just as likely to annually increase?

---Lastly, and importantly, does it make sense to create a dedicated revenue stream at this juncture to support an organization in undisputed financial peril? Doesn’t that actually provide a disincentive to manage finances efficiently going forward, knowing there is a tax that could simply be raised instead?

Aside from either of these two approaches is the approach of possible privatization. To ignore it and then lock out the option in perpetuity through the creation of a tax district is a bad move, in my opinion. At the very least, it needs to be considered and explored further. That’s called due diligence.

The overwhelming sentiment expressed to me as I’ve gone throughout town is people can’t afford another tax. At the very least, any further consideration of a tax district should occur through a referendum allowing direct consent of the people. If it takes a referendum to abolish a tax district, then it certainly ought to take a referendum to create one. I’m heartened to learn that a referendum will now be part of any eventual decision.

I don’t think there is a person in this room that questions the importance of reliable ambulance service. There probably isn’t a person in this room that questions the determination of REMS to straighten out their financial difficulties. There’s a lot of fear being peddled with regard to this issue. No one should be afraid. REMS does and is doing a great job for us. I’m confident we can figure out the best approach without compromising public safety or creating a new tax district…because the people need and expect us to.

Guest Post: Two-Party Paradox

by Damon Eris of Poli-Tea Party

One of the more perplexing paradoxes engendered by the politics of the two-party system is the lack of all proportion between the number of independents among the people of the United States and the number of independents among our elected representatives. A significant plurality of Americans consistently identify themselves as independents, rather than Republicans or Democrats, when queried as to their party affiliation. Nationwide, almost 40% of Americans consider themselves to be independents, according to recent polls. In some states, such as Utah, among others, Republicans and Democrats taken together do not constitute an absolute majority of the population. In government, however, almost 99% of elected officials are beholden to the Democratic and Republican Parties. If millions of voters nationwide do not identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, or with the Republican and Democratic Parties, with their means, their ends, or both, why are we only represented by officials who do? Confronted with this question, partisans of the major parties, many of whom are themselves dissatisfied with the political status quo, are often quick to assert the brute fact of the two-party system: we are represented by Democrats and Republicans, rather than independents and third party advocates, because we have a two-party system, they say. In other words, we have a two-party system because we have a two-party system. And because we have a two-party system, the argument continues, we have to work within the Republican and Democratic Parties, or simply accept the reigning Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government, if we desire to effect political change. Perhaps one might object here that this is nothing but a straw man argument. But is this not the exact logic by which millions of Americans resign themselves to voting for the lesser of two evils, when they are not simply voting against the greater of two evils, election after election? Otherwise principled liberals, conservatives, progressives and libertarians thus find themselves compromised by one party before they even confront the other, defeated from the outset by an ideological tautology.

Ironically, among the illusions that sustain the two-party system is the illusion that we have a two-party system. The US Constitution mandates no party system whatsoever; the framers where highly suspicious of what they called the "spirit of faction." The reigning Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government is rather an extra-constitutional political convention. In many ways it is little more than a fiction. At the local, state, and federal level, polities across the country are effectively dominated by a one-party system of government in which the Republican or Democratic Party has a virtual monopoly on seats for elected office. Yet, at the same time, there is always some level of independent and third party activity bubbling underneath the surface of the political status quo. Take the Northeast, for example. With the demise of Rockefeller Republicanism, it is considered a Democratic stronghold, at least for now. But there is strong evidence of independent resistance to the reigning two-party order, as such, in every state of the region, from the local to the federal level: in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Nor is such movement confined to the Northeast; promising independent campaigns for office are taking shape in Arkansas and Idaho, for instance.

Recognizing that the Democratic and Republican Parties are no longer effective vehicles for political representation, but have rather become obstacles to effective political representation, many people say they would consider voting for a "viable" third party or independent candidate for office.Though it may not be entirely correct to say that there is an independent movement taking shape in the United States, citizens from across the ideological spectrum are declaring their independence from the two-party system. But this is only the first step. If we only consider Republicans and Democrats to be viable candidates for office, then there will be no viable independent or third party candidates for office. The true measure of an independent is not whether he or she sometimes votes for Republicans and sometimes votes for Democrats, as partisans of the duopoly parties and their enablers in the media would have us believe, but rather, whether they vote for independent and third party candidates for office. The people can impose term limits on Democrats and Republicans any time we like: we must simply cease voting for them against our better judgment.