My name is Angus Jennings, I’m a professional planner with a specialty in housing & economic development. I’ve worked about half my career in Massachusetts town halls, and half my career as a consultant running my own small business. As a consultant, I have worked on projects in nearly 40 cities and towns across the Commonwealth, many working for the community itself. I was born in Springfield, grew up in Wilbraham, have lived in Quincy and Marshfield, and now my wife, young daughter and I call Concord home. Until this year, I had been a registered Democrat all my voting life, and was even on the Board of Directors of the Young Dems of Massachusetts (Mass Democratic Future) back in the early 2000’s. On Nov. 4, I’ll be on the ballot as the United Independent Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor- my running mate is Evan Falchuk. I’m here to humbly ask for your vote.
My livelihood is town and city planning and a core area of interest is housing and smart growth. I have seen as a town employee & in the private sector how state policy is restricting growth, and how the failure to address the obvious and growing problem of housing costs – and its relationship to jobs (jobs follow rooftops) is harming real people all over the Commonwealth.
But, my story is not really the important thing. Sadly, the failure of governance on the part of Beacon Hill related to housing is not an isolated instance. The list is well known and ever-growing (DCF, crime lab, Probation, hospital mergers, health connector, homeless families living in motels….). The important thing is that Beacon Hill is calcified and captured by special interests. Progressive change, change to effective governance, will not happen as long as the people challenging the Democratic leadership in the state legislature are the Republican leadership in the state legislature. The important thing is that, on Nov. 4, there is the opportunity to begin the process of bringing real change to Beacon Hill in the form of the United Independent Party.
Massachusetts is a unique and great place, we have led the nation in many ways of which we can be proud. But, the state’s government has failed to live up to the quality of its citizenry. Why must Massachusetts be stuck with the identical two party setup as Texas and Mississippi? This is holding us back from truly representative democracy and bold solutions to our problems. In Massachusetts, the conditions are such that there is a real chance for a pragmatically progressive third party to quickly grow into the second party.
Here are the three core governing principles of the United Independent Party (UIP): everyone is equal, everyone’s civil rights will be protected, & public money will be spent wisely. Nothing radical here, but many people agree that neither party represents this combination of values anymore. If you share these principles and believe that it is time we expect more of our state’s government, you will find a welcoming home in the UIP. If the Falchuk-Jennings ticket gets 3% in this election, the United Independent Party will become an official party – a big first step in the process of bringing something new and better to Beacon Hill.
If you want to learn more, please check out my website at www.Angus4LG.org and the website of my running mate Evan Falchuk at www.Falchuk2014.org. You can also visit www.UIPMass.org. Or send me an email at the address you can find by clicking on my name above, and/or connect on Facebook or Twitter (@Angus4LG). And, of course, feel free to ask any questions in the comments. You can also view my first commercial below.
I humbly ask again: If you don’t think that things are going well, why not try to shake things up? The status quo is not working for most of us. Vote for the United Independent Party and the Falchuk-Jennings ticket and invest in the health of our democracy.
Can you be more specific about which positions and years? I ask because your name and face don’t click and I was also on the board consistently between returning from college in 2000 and going to grad school in 2003. I was the 5th GC district director and later Secretary.
It was back in 2003-2004 and I was on the Board of Directors. Jonathan Chines was the Pres back then and others that you may know like Ken Parker and Jesse Mermell were on the board too. Here’s a piece of digital detritus re MDF that has may name on it, and maybe yours too if you are this same Christopher.
I circulated that newsletter at the time and it looks like our time did overlap a bit in 2003. Sorry my memory isn’t better.
This, and the premise of your argument is flawed. We do not have a two-party system in MA.
Allow me to build upon your Texas and Mississippi example though. Those two states are primarily protestant. In Protestantism, if you have differing opinions with your church, you can go open your own and preach whatever you want. Multiple churches.
In Catholicism, the main religion of our fair Commonwealth, there is one small-c catholic church that has many internal divisions. You don’t agree with something? Well, go set up an order and open a monastery, but you’re still in the same church and ultimately answer to the same head of authority in power.
So, in practice, the difference between MA’s two party system and other states is as stark as the difference between Catholics and protestants.
Never thought of it that way before, but it makes perfect sense.
But though that might be a great way to operate a massive, truly multi-cultural religious organization, it sure is a crummy way to run a civil government.
I am always intrigued by these guys, but they never seem to be interested in running candidates for the legislature. Absent that, even if they get their 3%, it will just be a flash in the pan.
It’s really more of a one and a half party system in Mass right now, and has been for a long time. This is what the Boston Globe said way back in 1990 when they actually endorsed a 3rd party candidate for Sec of State:
If anything, the problem has gotten worse since then.
If this is supposed to be a serious attempt to build a viable 3rd party, it is simply too little and way too late. And to simply try and build it on the concept of casting a protest vote against the current two party system, is hardly the basis for a system of government any more than:
If you try this again in 4 years, perhaps you should not wait until 5 days before the election to say, “Hello” for the first time.
I believe that the thing that prevents a progressive third party from forming in Massachusetts is that it would be very difficult for someone who runs against the Democrats to then run as a Democrat if they want to run for federal office. Which means that anyone who is serious about being a politician has a strong incentive to run as a Democrat instead of supporting a third party.
Also, I disagree with your claim that neither party represents the values of “everyone is equal, everyone’s civil rights will be protected, & public money will be spent wisely.” I think both parties would claim to support those principles (although Republicans would only make these claims if by everyone you mean everyone that is in this country legally). The failure to actually follow through on those principles isn’t the result of the parties campaigning against them or opposing them. It is a widespread failure of people to follow principles when they get power. So how does adding another party help?
If the unified independent party isn’t going to have a platform, then how is it a party? Can any crazy person get support from this party, just because they disagree with both Republicans and Democrats? Who decides which politicians will get support, and how is that decision made? Why would I want to support a party that doesn’t stand for anything except a vague concept of goodness?
JKW said:”It is a widespread failure of people to follow principles when they get power. So how does adding another party help?”
Adding another party gives the voters another choice on the ballot. It forces the other parties to be more accountable to the voters.
JKW said:”If the unified independent party isn’t going to have a platform, then how is it a party?”
I didn’t know a party must have a platform in order to be a party?? The UIP sounds like they are going to truly be that “big tent” that the other two parties claim to be. They seem to be willing to accept everyone in their party. That means that the UIP will have both Pro-choice people and Pro-life people in it. They probably believe there is room and time for the party to debate the issues. Can you put up a platform allowing both sides to feel as if their point of view is taken into consideration? I don’t think so. Having no platform is the only way everyone feels welcome and I agree with that decision. I think the UIP would rather vote on the person or the issues over the party, I think thats what they are trying to get across.
They don’t really stand for anything and don’t have any members. Their facebook page has eight Likes. They have no one running for any local office. It is a joke.
You want to create a party? Then get people to run for State Rep. and School Board and City Council.
Luc Shuster, got elected and served for three terms. Really smart, very dedicated to local, grassroots oriented action, democratic schools, and sustainability. He is now in Somerville and trying to reform its local elections so that more people of color are represented in its offices. I always felt, if every Green was like him, they would have majorities on the Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, and Pioneer Valley city and town councils, legislators for those areas, and their votes would be required to pass legislation-as the Progressive Party’s is in New York.
New York has fusion which is a whole other thing..
I hope they didn’t overpay.
think it went the other way, and that they did.
and true enough
The fusion system is quite interesting, for those who don’t know much about it.
It allows a progressive party to pull the Dems to the left without splitting the vote. And if the Dems don’t elect a true progressive, the other party can pull their ballot line in favor of acting as a true third party. Just the threat of losing the ballot line can help hold Dems to their promises.
But I know it’s worked in the past.
hrs-kevin-
You have a point. But who is to say that there is only one way to get to the brass ring. They’ve decided to go another route. You’re going to knock them just because they’ve decided to do things differently than you envisioned.
There simply isn’t any party here. Sorry, but a couple of guys throwing together a platform and declaring a party doesn’t make it one.
We have seen this same kind of thing time after time after time. People just want to do the fun conceptual work and go straight for a prominent statewide office. It makes them feel good and gets them some amount of attention, even though they know they will lose and won’t really accomplish anything. Very few people want to do the hard, thankless job of really building a party. The UIP is a vanity party, nothing more.
If you want to start something, you start small. This is why the “Pirate Party” is running state rep candidates in a few select areas, like against Rep Denise Provost in Somerville (they aren’t going to win but still). I also think this is a problem for people like Jill Stein, the often Green party candidate for Governor and President. No one will take you seriously as a third party candidate for high office. Run for something with a chance and maybe they will.
idea that people “lose their principles” when they are elected. They can keep their principles, but they have to accommodate dozens of other opinions on Beacon Hill and among the electorate. They have deal with conflicting power, not just of their own party, but the from their opponents, the media, the moneyed elite, and the electorate. That’s politics.
The idea that a party, any party, can transcend these influences is patently ridiculous.
In my view, the core values that motivate each person’s decisions are generally very stable and difficult to change. A key aspect of those core values determines the extent to which a person is themselves aware of their opinion about a particular issue and the extent to which that person shares their opinion with others. I suggest that our political system, and to a lesser extent our government, tends to have a selection bias towards men and women who simultaneously keep their core values very tightly guarded while publicly expressing whatever is the current desire of the masses.
I suggest that a pervasive trend, existing at least since 2007 when Al Gore wrote The Assault on Reason, is to replace reason, rationality, science, logic, and objective truth with emotion, belief, faith, prejudice and power as the fundamental determiners of public decisions.
In my view, the most successful path towards transcending the influences you cite is education, enlightenment, and cultural (rather than political) change. We have invented the most powerful tool for manipulating personal desires and feelings in human history (television). We use that tool to make our population as ignorant, compliant, and passive as possible (because ignorant, compliant, and passive people are most susceptible to advertising).
We have also put that tool in the complete control of a literal handful of our wealthiest individuals, and removed ALL effective controls over what those individuals do with it.
Our much-vaunted political system is failing. Failing, in the sense that it is causing us to make objectively wrong decisions on matters of extreme urgency. Public policy about energy use and climate change are just two of the easiest examples. Economic policy is another.
Neither individuals nor party is going to transcend the influences you cite while we do nothing about the spreading malaise of who are electorate actually IS and how that electorate is manipulated.
we’d be there by now. It’s much more complex. The limits of our minds are very troubling. Giving people more information often strengthens their opinions rather than corrects them.
Kahneman is a great source for the challenges of informing people. The skeptic community (scientific thinkers dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, the paranormal, etc.) has also studied the limits of education. See Drescher.
Providing correct information and educating people is necessary, but not nearly sufficient. The GOP and capitalist America understand this very well and know how to connect with the unthinking part of the brain.
Certainly education alone is not sufficient. I only meant that voting the person rather than the party won’t, in my view, change very much.
In my view, this is a profound challenge that has no bumper-sticker answers. I also think it will take decades/generations to correct — just as it took decades/generations to be recognized.
always seem to end up being independents. Why is that?
I guess I have a beef with Angus, because this whole campaign seems like a campaign to make Evan Falchuk a party boss of his own little start-up party. We don’t need an Evan Falchuk party, we need some significant reforms in the electoral system that has created a pariah party and a big tent party so big that the D after your name includes some very conservative DINOs and some passionate progressives.
Thanks fenway49, that’s a great question. I’m not sure, but I’ll raise the matter at the next Angus meeting :).
Pablo, that is not the case, I’m disappointed that that is your perception. But, I could not agree with you more about the need for significant electoral reform. And the way you describe relative conditions of the parties illustrates the reality of the potential in Massachusetts for a pragmatically progressive third party to become the second party. The United Independent Party will not be about any one person, if it were it obviously wouldn’t last very long. I still hope to get your vote for the Falchuk-Jennings ticket, but no matter who you support Nov 4, I would encourage you to give significant reform a chance by getting involved and adding your voice. Ultimately, the UIP, like the election, will be about who decides to show up.
The purpose of this election is to choose the next Governor of the Commonwealth. Right now, the choices are Martha Coakley and Charles Duane (Phisherman) Baker, Jr. One of these folks will be elected, and we will live with very different public policy as a result of this decision.
I want to reform our election process, but I think it is wrong to hijack the governor’s election for the purpose of creating a 100% content free political party.
The election results may change the tone of announcements made from the Corner Office.
Since public policy is almost entirely determined by the legislature, I think the likelihood that we’ll see significant changes or differences in public policy is very small. Governor Patrick has been in office for the past eight years. I don’t see major public policy differences between that period and the long night of GOP dominance that preceded it.
I was jubilant when Deval Patrick was elected. I remain dismayed by how little influence he actually had on public policy.
We got casino gambling anyway. We have not funded public transportation. We have dramatically expanded government surveillance. Income and wealth concentration has worsened. Our “gateway cities” have continued to decline. We have continued our harassment of welfare recipients and EBT holders. Our most important government agencies and services continue to be chronically underfunded because we continue to refuse to increase tax revenue to match need.
In terms of public policy, we have had and apparently will continue to have approximately the same result under both GOP and Democratic governors.
I won’t be voting for any of these independents, and I agree with you that the gubernatorial race is irrelevant to reform of our electoral process. Still, I don’t share the premise that you apparently base your conclusion upon.
The governor’s appointees have considerable power to create and implement public policy. I will just cite one example, the appointment of members of the state education boards. They have the ability to write regulations, and in the absence of leadership from the legislature, the power of the executive department’s regulation writers is immense.
Tom, the reason why Somerville has been taken out of the bottom 10% of districts, and now exempt from the expanded charter cap, is that DESE wrote regulations to increase the weight of growth in the evaluative criteria.
I think at least some of us in Somerville will suggest that the reason why Somerville has been taken out of the bottom 10% of districts is that property values in Somerville have been skyrocketing for years, that Somerville has been gentrifying for some time. Somerville has invested an enormous amount on improving its schools, and the homes and family situations that students in Somerville schools are coming from is dramatically changing.
There well may be important public policy differences between what the Patrick administration did and what a GOP administration would have done — I remain to be convinced that the example you offer is one of them.
Just like the law says every four years there shall be an election for Governor, the law says that to become an official political party, a member of a political designation must get 3% in in a statewide election. So, this election is about that too. And it should be noted that this law was designed by the state legislature, so if you have a complaint about the process there would be the place to make it.
As to your second point, which others above have echoed, though there is not an official platform (or official party, yet), there are the three principles outlined above and over the course of the campaign Evan and myself have put out a very large number of specific plans and positions that you can find on our websites and in the media. I daresay, we’ve been far more specific & detailed than any other ticket about our vision, and have been for many months. Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that on this very site there have been ongoing complaints about the consistent vagueness of both major party candidates.
Though the UIP is being started with a Gov run, it is intended to be a grassroots party. In 2016, as an official party, we will run people for the state legislature. That’s what this is about. As things stand, many of the seats are barely ever even contested. There are actually many good people in the legislature now, but it’s frozen in a dysfunctional system that is so top down & beholden to special interests that those good people can’t even get their bills discussed on the floor. It’s been this way for decades. I’m not saying it’s going to be easy, but things won’t change just going the way we have- the shape of the system need to change. Voting UIP in this election, or getting involved after, is an opportunity to start that change.
That pun was intended, right?:)
🙂
It’s prime.
Angus, as a former town planner you must know that you’ve touched the third rail of Massachusetts politics by discussing such topics as affordable housing regulations, zoning, property tax, school funding, etc. I appreciate your party’s willingness to bring these issues out into the open.
I don’t think people realize that Charlie Baker is keeping his agenda secret and just hinting at what it might be when he talks about “small business” and “simplifying the permitting process.”
Something needs to be done if we don’t want lack of housing to choke off the economic recovery as I believe it did early in the 2000s, and I’d rather have a real plan rather than just letting businessmen own the plan by default.
Appreciate the sentiment. Talking about those issues is a big reason I got into this.
A great idea for those who disregard Duverger’s Law.
Above someone made the point that third parties never want to run people for the legislature. No, they sure don’t. They want a short path to the top and often create havoc in the process. (See Ralph Nader and Eliot Cutler in Maine … for just two examples.) Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. Hey, you want change you gotta work for it. A lot of us Dems don’t always like what’s happening on Beacon Hill, but we run progressive people for the legislature, and we work to change things. So, I say to people who are thinking of running as a third party candidates: Go to your town/city/ward meetings; pound the pavement for your favorite Dem, read the Mass. Dem platform, and then run as a Democrat. You won’t regret it, and you might even win … the election and the respect of good people throughout the state. There is no short-cut to success, no matter how much we want change.
I get the appeal of your comment. I understand that this is the traditional process taught by political organizers for generations. I’m not sure it works.
We might “run progressive people for the legislature” — nevertheless, the Massachusetts Democratic Party has had ABSOLUTE control of that legislature for generations, and yet we do NOT have a progressive legislature. The very nature of today’s legislature, and its contrast with today’s Massachusetts electorate, suggests to me that the process you articulate has failed.
While I agree with you that there is no shortcut to success, I suggest that the traditional path you outline has long ago been co-opted by those in power to lead those “progressive people” into a dead-end of impotence, futility, and ultimately cynicism.
In fact, I think we desperately need a NUMBER of new parties. I think we desperately need to change our electoral system to encourage their formation — which means providing each of those a straightforward path towards real influence in the legislature. Sending a single “Green Party” legislator to Beacon Hill will accomplish absolutely nothing if the rest of the power structure on Beacon Hill remains as-is.
CHANGING our electoral system so that we replace the power structure on Beacon Hill with something that is more responsive to the ACTUAL will of the electorate is, in my view, far more likely to achieve the end we progressives seek.
I’m not so sure about that.
For weeks I have been reading here that, notwithstanding the innumerable faults of the Democratic nominee, people will nevertheless vote for the Democratic nominee because the Democratic party better reflects their liberal values, etc., etc., etc.
And yet the Massachusetts Democratic Party is rather obviously neither liberal nor progressive in any meaningful sense of those words. Well, says jimc, at least they reflect the electorate.
OK, so what is the point then? That seems to me to be an admission that the Massachusetts Democratic Party cannot really stand for anything at all, because its sweep is so large that it includes people who really don’t agree about anything at all. Which means that the only thing the Massachusetts Democratic Party really advocates is making sure that the Massachusetts Democratic Party controls as many political offices in the Commonwealth as is possible.
The absurd weakness and endless stream of unforced errors by the Massachusetts GOP is NOT an opportunity to forge a particular political agenda, but merely an opportunity to make sure more Democrats get elected to more offices.
That is nothing more than a recipe for venal, petty, corrupt, rent-seeking government, which, unsurprisingly, is exactly what we have now enjoyed for quite some time.
If by some anomaly, Massachusetts Republicans were to suddenly win both the governor’s office AND veto-proof and opposition-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature, they would seize the opportunity to make a mark on the Commonwealth as quickly as possible, because the opportunity is fleeting and will likely be gone in 2 years, because Massachusetts ain’t Alabama.
And yet this is the embarrassment of riches that has been the good fortune of the Massachusetts Party since the Reagan Administration! And what mark have they made in that time? Casinos?
And I heard almost a word for word sentence from a very prominent state legislator behind closed doors. But, if we elect more legislators like that one, and get some of them into leadership roles, than we can start making the change. The other key thing is-I haven’t seen the Republican party offering any new ideas either since the Reagan Administration. Between the two state parties, the Democrats remain the more hospitable home for progressive reform relative to the state GOP.
I really don’t remember our 16 years of Republican governors resulting in single payer healthcare, living wages, card check unionization, paid maternity and paternity leave, fully funded reliable public transit, or well funded schools with highly competent teachers who felt their profession was valued rather than constantly demeaned and attacked.
So I guess that means it doesn’t matter who is governor?
I’ve long said we have a de facto strong speaker/weak governor system of state government. And one could argue many of the Speakers who dealt with Republican Governors were ideologically aligned with them rather than with grassroots Democrats. Tommy Finneran comes to mind, save for saving us from the death penalty, he was a rather pro-business/anti-tax/anti-single payer Democrat who had a willing partner in Weld and Cellucci. Similarly, DeLeo would likely prefer a Baker to a Coakley for many of his priorities, even if she has gone out of her way to treat Mistah Speakah with kid gloves on ethics questions.
Travaglini was also a conservative Democrat on most issues, and a key reason Romneycare was such a watered down version of what truly universal healthcare could’ve been.
A few points:
Tom said the Legislature does not reflect the electorate. I questioned that.
You extrapolated that to the entire party. That is an interesting way to launch your reverie, but it’s not an accurate reflection of what I said.
Three, the Massachusetts Legislature IS progressive. It’s flawed certainly, it has issues, it’s not Vermont, and it’s not as progressive as Blue Mass Group. But by most measures and compared to most states, it is progressive.
not the MA Democratic Party, which is a mere 80% of the House and 90% of the Senate. Amazing just how influential a 10% minority can be!
When a good portion of that House and Senate are composed of the likes of Jim Miceli in the House, Timilty and O’Connell in the Senate, its not a progressive legislature. I would argue the progressive caucus is certainly a minority of the members-and that many of them voted against their caucus line on key issues like transit funding. Surely you know this.
I’m guessing this is rhetorical? I mean, if you see marriage equality, leading health care reform, and the best schools in the nation “nothing” then I’m not sure we’re even speaking the same language.
Anyone see that as a Republican priority?
Thank goodness for the proviso to Rule 6!
Falchuk seems good on civil liberties — in particular, ending the war on drugs. I’m less enthusiastic about his support for gun control, but we can work on that ;).
And his idiot supporters insisted there was no difference between the buffoon and Al Gore.
So Nader gets 90,000 Florida votes and Gore ‘loses’ Florida by 550.
Now tell me Al Gore would have lied us into Irag war, and then mismanage us to the brink of a financial collapse, and then destroy our environment. Corrupt traitors !
Obama is still cleaning up the mess these evil fools left us.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Gore put Bush in the White House. He spurned the help of Clinton, the most astute politician of the era. He failed to effectively counter the BS the corporate media painted him with. Finally, he did not pursue a challenge to the ridiculous Florida decision on vote counts. Ultimately, he failed to get enough people to vote for him in states where it mattered.
If you continue to blame 3rd-party candidates and people who vote their consciences when your favorites fail, you encourage your party to put up more tepid champions.
In the absence of the 22nd Amendment, Bill Clinton would have run away with the 2000 election, making road kill of George W. Bush or anyone else the GOP nominated. Mr. Clinton was far and away the most popular candidate of era.
Mr. Clinton would not have lied us into the Iraq war, mismanaged us PAST the brink of financial collapse (the collapse of 2008 actually DID happen), and would not have destroyed our environment.
The 22nd Amendment is among the worst mistakes of our legislative history, and should be reversed.
Barney Frank wanted to reconsider it too. Granted, we might’ve had JFK lose to a third term of Ike, but Iran-Contra woulda sunk Reagan in 88′ so it
might’ve washed out. I might add, Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger had a topple the Taliban and blow up the Qaeda camps plan in place after the Cole bombing that Bill almost approved-but he didn’t want to tee it up to the next guy. Had he got re-elected to a record third term he might’ve gone through with it. It’s why Chris Wallace was such an idiot for attacking Clinton on that front.
Maybe of any era? If we pull off surprises in LA, KY, GA, and AR it’s the Big Dawg not Obama who got it done.
For me, the difference between Bill Clinton and anyone who has come since is that I sincerely believe that, had a plan been proposed such as the the one you described, Mr. Clinton would have done the right thing (and I carefully duck the question of whether or not the plan should have been executed).
I meant to say “Mr. Clinton was far and away the most popular candidate of our era”. I don’t know about Ike or FDR, because each was before my time.
I’m not sure a third term of Ike would have been bad. I doubt that Ike would have allowed us to get sucked into the war in Indochina. Who knows what the sixties might have been without the Vietnam war. Watergate would almost surely not have happened, but who knows what else better or worse might have unfolded.
All this is why I would like to see the 22nd Amendment reversed.
I would add that had the 22nd Amendment been in place for the election of 1940, we’d all be speaking German now.