Thoughts about the MN Independence Party

One of the oldest questions asked by ancient philosophers is the casualty dilemma, “what comes first the chicken or the egg?” Metaphorically the ancient philosophers were discussing life with that question but as we look towards the future of the Independence Party of Minnesota we have a similar problem. What comes first the Money or the Structure?

The infrastructure of the Party is dependent on Money but without the infrastructure can the IP raise the money? It is another casualty dilemma that will be plaguing the Party Leadership as the year progress and the Party begins to prepare for the 2012 election cycle.

The IP cannot hope for success without building the party infrastructure. The infrastructure the party needs is branding itself as being different than both parties, keeping people active in the party, the ability to organize volunteers, and the ability to raise money.

As William Labovitch in his letter to the Editor of the Star Tribune writes “It's time the Independence Party stops running candidates and runs on the only message it ever had: None of the above.” The problem of course is that is nowhere near the truth. Anyone who watched the Tom Horner’s campaign saw the message “No Left, No Right, but Forward” to borrow Peter Hutchinson’s campaign slogan. Horner proposed many vastly different solutions than either of the other candidates and spent hours explaining the difference but if the common Joe only knows or hears “None of the above” than there is a branding issue that needs to be addressed.

As Tom Horner suggests in his editorial to the Star Tribune:

the political center needs to be branded. Accurately or not, Minnesotans define the political left as the defenders of social justice, where the interests of Everyday Joe or Jane take priority over Wall Street. If this requires bigger government, so be it. On the political right, Minnesotans see a party perceived to be for business and smaller government. The right is seen as the home of "traditional values."
As for the political center, for too many Minnesotans there is no definition. It's a political mash-up, a bit of this and a bit of that without any clarity and, worse, without any core principles. There needs to be a clear and compelling answer to the question, "What does it mean to be a political centrist?"

Of course as a former Moderate Republican, I instinctly know what the center of the political spectrum, but how do I explain and “sell” that knowledge to another potential voter. Maybe the new motto should be “the best of both worlds; working to improve the life of the common Joe by partnering with the Business.”
“Best of Both Worlds” needs to be a starting point a simple rallying point for the political center and it needs to be expressed in a platform and plank. If the platform of the Party continues to be centered on the Party and not political spectrum than the slogan is lost.
The current first item of the core values of the IP reads “A democratic process with integrity and broad citizen participation” I would suggest it should be rewritten “Empowering and Engaging citizens to be involved in the democratic process with integrity and tolerant ideals.” Well that is my first attempt at that sentence, but while they mean virtually the same thing the second sentence is more appealing and attractive to the casual voter.
This concept needs to be heard by more than those in just the Party and sooner than the next election, and that’s what the Party Leadership needs to do, speak out. MPR, morning news shows, letters to the editors, speaking engagements,

The next issue is one that I have complained about for years, the inability to keep people involved with the party after the election. I’ll be honest I am no different than your average Joe, none election season and I hardly write or post anything, however once the election season starts. For the party to grow and bloom that needs to change. Where are people like John Binkowski, Jim Haviland, Peter Hutchinson, Tim Penny. A few of us know that some of these people are still involved but the IP needs to better engage these former candidates and get them involved in preparing, recruiting, and fund raising for the party and it next generation of candidates.
But it goes beyond the former candidates (and their staffs) but to the general volunteers and those that provided financial support for the process. These people are just as important to the party, especially moving forward. Horner has called these people the Grassroots of the party. It could be something as small as a $50 donation to the party or attending a political rally or fundraiser. All of this is important as the party moves forward.
One of the problems with the IP and many geographically dispersed groups’ is that the call for action is both local and regional in nature and that requests sent to everyone become toned out because there are so many. I can’t tell you how often over the past year I saw requests for “volunteers” in places well beyond my general vicinity. In the end all these requests became no better than spam. The IP needs a better system of ‘spearing’ or getting the people closest to the event notified and leaving those further away off the list. Even if it means losing one or two people from across the state if the requests seem more local more people should want to involved. You live in SW Minnesota than you should hear about the events in the South West Minnesota, not the NE or the NW or… Stay Local.
This also needs to include expanding the “get togethers” and the what not. The next time that the IP gets together shouldn’t be the caucus in spring. We need to start now to empower more people.

Finally the party needs a better fundraising apparatus. It needs to allow people to contribute on different scales and means than the current system. The average donation is like $45 a year per individual and if the IP wants to move forward than it needs to get that amount from the core group and next orbit of people. Simple math if 100,000 people donate $45 a year than the IP has raised $4.5 million dollars, considering that amount is nothing compared to what the big two parties raise it is more than enough to be competitive in 2012.