Do We Subconsciously Erect Extra Hurdles for Third Party Presidential Candidates to Jump Through?

The 2016 presidential elections document a very interesting time in American history. Five major presidential candidates emerged in this White House race, and in this digital age of instant gratification, where almost any topic imaginable awaits online dissemination, to have explained in depth from several different perspectives, instantaneously with just a few clicks, a majority of people can only name the two establishment party candidates: Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The three other candidates, Bernie Sanders (may his campaign RIP), Dr. Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson vaguely exist as part of the election show. Probably the most interesting aspect of these elections, the majority of people disapprove of these two main candidates basking in the media’s spotlight. This election could officially get coined the election of the two lessor evils when clearly, that outlook defies the fact that three other, now only two, intelligent candidates aspire to participate in the presidential conversation and present their presidential platform.

How do we have an historically embarrassing approval rating of two major candidates while at the same time marginalizing, almost downright ignoring, two (previously three) other candidates, in the media and collectively? How does one major party claim ‘anybody but Trump’ while the other claims ‘anybody but Clinton’ and no one finds any interest in a shortlist of anybodies? My only theory has to do with a phenomenon that I am noticing and can only describe as a psychological disadvantage to joining the presidential elections as a third-party candidate.

It seems many, if not the majority of, Americans, when confronted with someone different (politically or otherwise), subconsciously need to find a ‘place’ for that person. Finding the place – label – of that person, here a presidential candidate, takes precedence over all other logistical functionality regarding that person, meaning that before the candidate gets thought of as possibly offering useful information or as having a serious platform that could benefit the greater good of the country, the candidate must pass an internal verification process of each voter. The candidates of the firmly established parties, the republicans and the democrats, simply avoid these special, collective conscious discriminations that greatly reduce legitimacy of the third-party candidates.

This psychological disconnect of third-party candidates appears on television just as surely as it exists in your Facebook and Twitter feeds; it certainly exists in mine. This seemingly illogical ‘block’ that requires further processing may start simply enough with our words, as the most effective slight of third-party candidates stems from use of the phrase ‘third-party.’ With little imagination, use of third-party offers as much appeal as the third-wheel on a date and provides the same bad taste in your mouth. But I fear its use does much more than that…

Simply saying 'third-party' should obviously reinforce the idea that the system optimally operates in two parties, yet the subtleness of the phrase affects us subconsciously more than we may believe, allowing us to consciously ignore that connotation. Democrats and republicans do not make the first and second parties, yet all nondemocratic and nonrepublican candidates fall into the third-party label. Now that all opposing forces of the primary parties exist in this third-party box, the potential for group invalidation – much harsher and less fair than individual invalidation – becomes an instinctual option. Not only does label validation and invalidation exist, it becomes much easier to get invalidated as a third-party candidate since that box identifies with many people from many different political perspectives. Also, as third-party candidates do not often win, this box also fills with losers, and Americans do not like losers.

So for Sanders, Stein, and Johnson, somewhere between announcing their candidacy and laying out their platform, they already have to fight down all the randomly assigned modifiers of that third-party other box, which includes: not qualified, not represented in congress, not experienced (my favorite), not able to win, not to mention the less polite modifiers like kooky, radical, and extremist. This only happens because we collectively accept that third-party candidates, like all others before them, offer dreamers and losers, not potential respectable presidents. These third party candidates face scrutiny like no others all the while, in this election, the two major parties offer the people little in the way of change and little in the way of practical political conversation at all. They offer entertainment, insultingly unintelligent smear campaigns that dominate our daily news while real message offered by third-party candidates get little to no coverage.

Collectively, we have allowed this to happen and accept it. We do not want change because we fear it. While the media finds every way to invalidate third-party candidates in massive conscious altering campaigns, we reflect that same mentality in our own conversations, on Facebook, Twitter, and in real life. This psychological block allows us to watch the presidential election show comfortably, accepting that the ability to change what happens evades us. It allows us not to question that lack of media coverage from third party candidates, not to question the lack of politics in the coverage of the elections as a whole.

Most profoundly it, it allows us to very safely, very comfortable, ignore any voice that might exists somewhere inside that says, “maybe I should research this person or this campaign more, to see where their energy focuses, which issues they address, and whether I agree or disagree with their general platform.” In the same way, it allows us to avoid a much scarier question, “what if I agree more with a new candidate than my previously selected, party loyal choice?”

Sadly, without ever consciously becoming aware of any of these notions, otherwise open and highly intelligent people continue to write off third-party candidates without due process, without researching those candidates, without researching their platforms, really, with very little interest.

Where Does a Real Cop End and a Real Person Begin?

I know a few cops and would love to hear their real cop opinions on events at the construction site of the Dakota Access Pipeline, as well as their philosophical stance on public policing in general.

As a cop, where do you draw your professional line?

When do you decide to stop following marching orders – or just do your job – when it conflicts with the protection and service to which you swore an oath? Likewise, at what point do you become consciously aware that your orders conflict with that service and protection?

For what, if anything, will you place your personal conviction to protect and serve other Americans over your professionalism?

I almost refuse to believe that the officers lack awareness of the fact that this water source supplies the only clean drinking water to these people, and if anything goes wrong with the pipeline’s construction or everyday use, from completion until forever, these people will simply thirst to death and die – a second gift of genocide to the native Americans from the contemporary Americans. The police officer sawing that cast-like restraint with a handsaw (no possibility of harm there, right?) totally knows that, right?

Actually, he if knows not, that suggests an entirely different, uglier problem that could exist within the policing regimes: brutal, unadulterated ignorance. Sadly that possibly and probably exists, although a separate issue and topic to tackle, compounding bad situations much like this, and creating an environment where people seemingly get murdered by police officers, execution style, for what appears as not adequately stroking authoritarian ego – my, harsh perspective and opinion that I do not apply to every police officer.

So how do real police officers perceive the actions of these police officers installed at the Dakota Access Pipeline construction area? Do real cops believe that corporations over step the rights of humans for corporate greed, yet must comply with their job for personal, familiar security, or do cops find these protesters – protesting their most basic right to water – a true problem and feel they need stopped?

That perspective obviously affects the impact on his or her role and actions taken in any situation. It may even allow them to disconnect slightly, to facilitate actions that others, the general population for example, may find harsh (or unlawful, cruel, even treasonous).

Silent wars hide in the headlines

We face new wars. Corporations actively waged nothing short of a war upon the Native Americans fighting for a basic need of survival: clean water. An entity resembling the shattered remains of a people controlled government has waged war upon the consciousness of said people, subconsciously instilling fear of enemies, neighbors, the different. That same entity waged war upon the consciousness of our police forces, a similar tactic, subconsciously instilling fear of losing control of a person pulled over, a small group of people, a large mass of protestors, the people. The simple objective of these two collective-couscous altering wars facilitates a loss of control - revolt - in the people while simultaneously crafting a deeper alliance by police forces to the higher governing forces that write their checks.

I sincerely hope that the police have not generally become so insensitive from policing (and I often do fall short of remembering how dangerous and stress generating a police officer’s life becomes) that he or she cannot recognize simple human indignation when it occurs. I feel bad for what I would consider a ‘good’ cop installed in situations like this. I think I can safely say most of us do not go to work with the pressure of the possibility of unknowingly becoming part of a situation that could pivot the history of an entire nation, a very powerful nation, filled with very power entities (corporations), with interests in a situation that you now manage via the authority invested in you by a people that you may or may not be letting down.

What do you do?

What do you do as an officer when you truly feel that your marching orders defy your oath? If you feel conflicted in any way as an officer and you would like to express any concerns you have in policing that you feel you cannot adequately discuss or address with your superiors – I would love to hear about it. I have no interest in names, identifying information, or subjecting anyone to a loss of their employment. I just want to hear from the real mean and women facing real and heavy problems that might need outside exposure and analysis. Shoot me an email with anything you would like to share to brandonjcarver@gmail.com.

What Message Did We Miss With Kaepernick Dismissed?

Since I did get on Facebook recently, I learned a football players name: Colin Kaepernick, the one who did not stand up for the national anthem in protest.

"I [will not] stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. [The issue seems] bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way, [past] bodies in the street and people getting paid leave [while] getting away with murder."

It did not surprise me to hear his stance on the state of America, if one watches any news or participates in social media, he can see that the declining state of America dominates current political conversations. We have a republican presidential candidate that seemingly wants us terrified of going to the grocery store – we might get shot.

With all of the conversations launched through the #BlackLivesMatter movement – the good, the bad, and the ugly – Kaepernick’s simple, silent protest I saw as just another muffled voice in the crowd, another everyday person becoming unpleased with the current state of affairs.

I saw the following statement from the NFL as a sort of validation of how little I felt about his protest, honestly not giving it too much consideration at the first glance of the headline:

"The national anthem, a special part of the pre-game ceremony, [offers] an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we afford as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem."

I did note to myself that many people would initially find his protest, an exercise of one of his basic rights as a free American, as off-putting or distasteful, but I did not think long enough to foresee that people would become so angry, so fast, and stay that way!

The American flag does mean many things to many people, and one certainly has a right to feel passionately about the flag, but I also think it unfair to say that the American flag does not mean many things to Kaepernick. His protesting the National Anthem and not saluting the American flag symbolizes an expression of discontent and a demand for action to resolve the root issues causing that discontent. I see that as an honorable act.

I see how one can view Kaepernick’s protest as offensive and want to write him off completely, yet I want people to understand that protests have a deeper meaning, and sometimes the conversation just needs hearing. One can say many things, like why the national anthem, why the football game, why not this, that, and the other? But possibly the goal was simply to get a conversation started – you nailed that part, Kaepernick – and instead of expending energy taking offense, we should expend energy fostering these tough conversations that are needed to address this very real issue that really exists.

Kaepernick Simply Said What We Are All Saying

Police brutality and racial inequality unfortunately dominate news headlines. It hits a city far away on television, then it hits closer to home – sometimes it does hit home. An entire movement – #BlackLivesMatter – spawned as a result of trending police brutality and racial inequality.

These problems really require our attention, and if I personally could get more people talking about solutions, I would! Kaepernick simply became aware of his position and the opportunity that he had, and he simply felt convicted to use that position for the cause. I personally thank him for understanding that we need better and for risking his livelihood just to help get that message out there. I also feel obligated to continue that conversation on ending police brutality and racial inequality in my neighborhood and nationally – the least, right?

But Kaepernick Does Not Know Oppression, He Can Leave This Country If Unhappy

After starting this piece, I thought about not even addressing some of the negative reactions I have witnessed, which actually moved me to research this topic more and begin writing. But I am going to address a couple common responses because I have become disconcerted with the actions of so many people, not just in reacting to Kaepernick, but in general.

The lack of respect that I witness in online conversations concerns me, especially regarding sensitive topics that are imperative for the well-being of our country.

If you matriculated out of elementary school, “if you don’t like it, you can leave,” should no longer be considered a valid, adult response to someone. If you are still in elementary school, when you perceive someone as different from you, or they anger you, you should look for similarities and try to solve your problems amicably – like adults.

Also, at no point did I hear this guy say that he himself felt oppressed. I see people talking about his fat NFL contract and his wealth as if it carried any relevance. I do not believe he protested for his own benefit, but for the awareness of the police brutality and racial inequality. I think the memes and references to his millions side step from the real point, almost intentionally, as if admitting a disinterest in having the real conversation.