Twenty-something Politico in Training

The AP Press addressed the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution today. The article marks the continuation of the protests that have been going on since last summer's presidential elections.  Even with a government crack down on Gmail and other modes of electronic communication and the threat of the Basij militiamen and the Revolutionary Guard creating contained violent counter ruckus and possible arrests, protesters and leaders important to the protest like a senior opposition leader, Mahdi Karroubi, and the granddaughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, have continued to come out.

The current state of unrest is of course ironic for this anniversary, considering the young revolutionaries from 1979 have become the repressive government regime keeping tight control over the anti-Western propaganda and pro-government stance of the nation's politics.  Yet the current young generation are not looking to embrace help from the west to counter the current government.  Since last summer's unified voice of protest against the disputed presidential elections, the message of their side of the struggle has remained intnerally strong without the help of Westphalian powers such as the US, and have even declined such support to strive for a successful internal movement and uprising.  The protest message of this generation, or specificaly the Green Wave movement, is to bring to justice their own government and its violent crack down on morality with a pro-government message, an enforcement of traditional and repressive parts of Islam in an attempt to isolate the country for purposes of corruption and violent power over its own citizens. 

Despite the communication crack down of internet services, there still remains youtube and twitter feeds about today's protest.  Like the one below, there are pictures of police brutality, Green solidarity, and even Neda, the woman who bled to death during last summer's protests, becoming an icon of the movement.

Illinois Green Party Gubernatorial Candidate Rich Whitney is among countless third party candidates (and the parties themselves) which don't get the media coverage they need in the election cycles of late.  Not just because of the lack of funding or state/federal support for their particular candidacy, while these are key factors which third parties like the Green Party in Illinois faces. It's the lack of political savvy from these parties to understand that elections are not just about getting a message out, but to connect with the voter base, and to get the voters interested in actually listening to your message.

So like any other campaign professional, I argue that a good candidate has to pay attention to effective party organization and candidate familiarization, but for the sake of the audience, your voter.  Once you've persuaded them you're someone worth listening to, you need to maintain that stance.  Accomplishments help, like in Whitney's case, being the candidate who helped establish the Green Party in Illinois back in 2006 with 10% of the vote.  Yet he has not made effective use of the internet, blog-o-sphere, or other like-minded individuals in Illinois or nationally that might agree with him, give him a bump, or give him the time of day.  I had to search for a paltry couple of videos on Youtube to get the video below, and his own website has audio as new as 2006.  The Illinois Channel also had two snippits on Youtube, which were Whitney announcing his candidacy back in July 2009.  I can't find too many more tags for this man to know what it is he's doing, except by going to his site, which for the most part, is an elongated version of the video below.

From what I've seen and studied about politics, elections aren't really about being stalwart on issues, but rather about getting people to understand why they should be motivated to actually want to listen to you in the first place.  Whether the argument is racist or educated, Leftist or Right-winged, voters will not care if they hear the harsh rhetoric that defames a particular portion of what is wrong with America unless they already agree with you.  These might be your base, but they are not the numbers you need to actually win an election.  To gain the positive attention of an audience, you need to effectively persuade them that you are not a niche player who only caters to a small (even if loyal) audience, but rather can work within the political system to actually get something done.

Now, I know there are countless books out there on how to run a campaign itself effectively.  Plenty of other professional campaigners can also give you the same kind of advice.  But in the old fashioned idea of people listening to a good political debate, or listening to a politician at all, focusing on the needs of the audience is the most important part of persuading them to understand your point.  It worked for Aristotle, and the finer points of his Rhetoric are still being used.

From the headlining story of Politico.com this morning, "Tea Leaves:  GOP Establishment Still Rules", the US is witnessing the continual effects of a political stymie: the importance of getting elected versus the reason candidates get elected - their ideas, their beliefs, their platforms. People watch the elections, they participate, but do they really believe in them?

In the case of the GOP this mid-term election cycle, their ideological swing to try and incorporate the Tea Bagger phenomenon has become an effort at straddling multiple conservative bases in an effort to win votes, but not alienate anyone.  The problem with that however, is that fundamentalist groups are built off of alienating people - mainly anyone who doesn't agree with their platform.  Yet a good establishment party, like the GOP, knows how to cater to the ideals behind the fundamentalism, and pushes the focus from the ideas to the election.

But for the myriad of the voters out there, is the brand name or "lesser of two evils" argument, something to really want to vote for, or are people just frustrated into submission of the either/or of the established parties?  Why do fundimentalist groups like the Tea Baggers not just go out with the Libertarians, the Constitutionalist Party, or whatever else springs up from the grass-roots activism to generate the numbers needed to win an election?

Elections are geared towards those who want to be involved.  Everyone is invited, but most people these days if they aren't following a particular group or Party, don't know where to start with accessing their own beliefs, and then how they jive with a Party or not.  Voters who feel a strong connection with an ideal may not feel a strong connection with the party they vote for, but often they follow the "lesser of two evils" idea, largely as a way to be a part of a larger phenomenon of civic duty, without feeling the power to find something (or be something) better than the two choices that have only been established for less than a century. 

So for people who want to vote, what do they vote for?  Is it for the election itself, to be a part of what they only see is two main parties that will never change?  Or, is it for the sake of numbers, to bypass the bureaucratic steps needed to create an established party, and compromise fundamentalist ideals?  I don't think that either/or is fair to the American people, but I do think those that are in the middle of the straddling who are being smooshed by efforts like those of the GOP need to speak up a little more, perhaps outside of the election cycle and vent their frustrations.