Nicollet said she’s disappointed in the Independence Party losing its major party status, but that it’s essentially a brand rather than a philosophy. “I think it’s a needed third option just for the people who resonate with those beliefs,” she said. “I just wish there was a better outlet for the people who are more socially left and fiscally right.”A brand, rather than a philosophy. Let those words rattle around in your brain for a second. What does a brand mean? It's a question that nearly every business faces. Businesses typically sell tangible goods or experiences, and their brands comes to connote the experiences your customers have when they purchase and use the product or service. Certain expectations come with the brand, especially a well-established one, and protecting the brand is crucial. And as long as the brand continues to meet expectations, success follows.
So when Nicollet says that the Independence Party is a brand without an underlying philosophy, she neatly encapsulates the reason why it's always been silly to call the IP a "major" party. Political parties are based on philosophies, ways of seeing the world. A typical Republican is skeptical of the blandishments of government, while a typical Democrat believes that government blandishments are essential to the ordering of society. Voters usually understand these views and since voters are, whether they like it or not, consumers of the political process, they base their political choices on those underlying world views. The parties suffer when they do not meet those expectations, or when they botch the execution of programs designed to further their world view. With the notable exception of our fair state, the Democrats suffered on Tuesday.
Minnesota took a flyer on what is now the IP in 1998, mostly because the two primary parties had milquetoast candidates on offer. That experience was mostly forgettable; for all his bravado, Jesse Ventura never had enough power to effect any lasting changes, because he never had any institutional support. As a result, he had to make a choice on who he would work with, and generally that was the DFL. He didn't like being Roger Moe in a do rag, but that's what he was.
After Ventura left, about the only thing that remained in the IP was a conceit -- we're not really like those other people. The IP never really got around to telling people what it was, mostly because it couldn't agree on even those first premises. In the end, that's the IP brand -- we're an alternative, but we can't define what that alternative means, although we're not icky like those Neanderthal Republicans and those spendthrift DFLers. We're not like them -- just ask us! And that's why the IP is no longer a major party in Minnesota.
2 comments:
The IP essentially missed their window in 2002, when the party looked to become a warming house for wayward pols (hence, how Sheila Kiscaden became the only legislative victory the IP ever had). The IP fielded well over 40 candidates that year, many of them former/current legislators, all hoping to ride a presumed Tim Penny wave to victory. Didn't quite work out.
That was a close as the IP came to "party building." While the IP always bemoaned the lack of resources compared to the other major parties, what they really lacked was a grassroots. And grassroots aren't held together by policy wonks and pols looking for a "brand" (a wonderful description of the IP, btw). I remember a conversation I had with Jack Uldrich of the IP years ago when I chided him about not looking to recruit local candidates, and instead focusing on statewide offices. A bevy of city councilmen, county commissioners and school board members might not sound sexy for a party that won the governorship once, but that's how all parties start. And it would have given the electorate an opportunity to see what kind of leadership electing Independence Party candidates would deliver.
1998 was for the IP the equivalent of giving a 16-year old the keys to a Maserati - yes, they're legally able to drive, but probably not ready for that level of difficulty. They squandered the chance in part because of Ventura's petulance, but mostly because Barkley et al spent those four years trying to recapture lightening in a bottle. Remember the attempt to get Paul Majors to run for Senate?
I don't think it's a coincidence that the IP & GOP's problems overlap. The IP had branded itself (circa 2002-2006) as a more center-left party. That dried up the left-leaning voter pool and allowed the GOP to win statewide, and close legislative races, with less than 50% of the vote. With the left-leaning vote consolidated, I'm not sure quite how the GOP gets back any statewide office without a third party candidate taking at least a token share of that vote.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the IP & GOP's problems overlap. The IP had branded itself (circa 2002-2006) as a more center-left party. That dried up the left-leaning voter pool and allowed the GOP to win statewide, and close legislative races, with less than 50% of the vote. With the left-leaning vote consolidated, I'm not sure quite how the GOP gets back any statewide office without a third party candidate taking at least a token share of that vote.
I think the GOP wins again when the DFL's perpetual screwing of the pooch becomes painful to enough people to toss them out.
Post a Comment