E-Mail This Article to a Friend ChIP off the old block (continued)

JACQUELINE SALIT — a stylish, attractive woman who puts her flair for dramatic hauteur to use as ChIP’s political coordinator — opened ChIP by offering a recent history of independent politics in the US. Some of Salit’s comments, like a reference to the excitement Perot generated in 1992, were irreproachably objective. Others had a more dubious editorial slant, like her assertion that Fulani’s clique had been a blessing for the Patriot and Reform Parties. While Salit, a former editor of the NAP’s official newspaper and Fulani’s deputy campaign manager during her presidential runs, lamented the Reform Party’s rightward drift under Pat Buchanan, she failed to note Fulani’s 1999 political alliance with the man. And at least one noteworthy independent — Jim Jeffords, the Vermont senator who altered the nation’s political landscape by switching his affiliation from Republican to independent — went unmentioned in her synopsis.

As for the conference itself, its proceedings were noticeably top-heavy. Seated behind a podium on an elevated stage, the event’s conveners — Fulani, Newman, and Salit; Omar Ali, a Columbia-trained historian and former Fulani campaign worker who handles student outreach for ChIP; and Jim Mangia, a high-profile California independent who once conducted gay-and-lesbian outreach for the NAP — kept a controlling hand on the proceedings. For example, there was no point at which participants broke up into small working groups for egalitarian give-and-take. Instead, the conveners and a handful of guests spoke while the attendees sat passively, with small blocks of time allocated for audience questions. At one point, Salit mentioned that — in her opinion — it would be overly hasty if the weekend culminated in an official endorsement. She presented this as a proposal, not a final decision. But since it was never voted on, Salit’s opinion carried the day. In fact, no votes were taken during any conference proceedings that I witnessed.

In lieu of a party-based independent organization like the Reform or Green Parties, Salit and the other organizers offered ChIP, again and again. Their argument was simple: the demise of the Reform Party and the paucity of votes cast for third-party candidates in 2000 show that independents need a movement, not another party. And ChIP was presented as part of the solution. If that seems confusing, that’s because it is. Over the course of the weekend, the handy ChIP acronym was used to refer both to the conference itself and to an ongoing process, one that will force the major parties to recognize independents’ numerical and organizational strength and to treat them respectfully — reaching out to them, speaking to them as equals, acknowledging their calls for electoral reform, nonpartisanship, and the elimination of special interests from politics. This process apparently began with another ChIP convention, a founding gathering held in New York City in January 2003. And the candidates who had filled out questionnaires or sent spokesmen to last weekend’s conference were described, approvingly, as entering into the "ChIP process" — which, presumably, will move forward with additional conventions at yet-to-be-specified dates. If what happened in Bedford is any indication, one or more major-party candidates will send representatives. No votes will be taken. And little will be achieved — except more mainstream credibility for Newman, Fulani, and their fellow ChIP leaders.

In the long run, though, CUIP and ChIP may do more than allow questionable figures like Fulani and Newman to repackage themselves as respected, high-profile moderates. Omar Ali has been traveling the country giving lectures on the history of the independent movement, appearing at schools like Stanford, Yale, and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill. On January 10, the first day of the ChIP conference, Ali brought nine students on stage for a brief presentation. Each related how he or she had been inspired by Ali’s words on the history and future of independents in America, and how Ali’s presentation led them to create a new political organization or newspaper on campus. According to Salit, over 40 percent of college students identify as independents. If this kind of methodical outreach continues, a substantial portion of independent-leaning college students may come to view ChIP’s gloss on the independent movement as authoritative — and to see Newman and Fulani as its greatest heroes. If that happens, it’s not unreasonable to think that twentysomething independents — unaware of Newman and Fulani’s shady past — will then begin looking to them for leadership.

The dominant mood at the ChIP gathering was one of self-congratulatory empowerment, tinged with an undercurrent of resentment. At one point, Salit likened the "independent movement" to past American struggles against religious and racial intolerance. "I think one thing you’re looking at now is political intolerance," she observed gravely. But soon, Salit predicted, independents would emerge as the conscience of the country in its newest great fight. "That’s what needs to happen to make this country grow and develop and be a decent place for all of us," she concluded. The crowd applauded eagerly.

On Saturday night and again on Sunday morning, Fred Newman — a lanky, mustachioed, bald man decked out in casual professorial garb — gave his view of what it means to be an independent to a rapt audience. On Sunday, his comments, which followed brief and scrupulously timed presentations by representatives of Clark and Kucinich and the handful of long-shot candidates who appeared in person, was a mellow, rambling affair that lasted almost an hour. In it, Newman discussed (among other things) his childhood, his philosophical evolution, and his pantheon of personal heroes. His assessment of the "independent movement" as epitomized by the ChIP convention — throughout the weekend, ChIP and the "independent movement" were mentioned in tandem, to the point where they seemed to become synonymous — was vague but upbeat. "We are going to create honesty by practicing honesty," Newman promised in a soft voice. "We will do that; we will transform the culture. We are, in this room this weekend, contributing to the transformation of the culture, and what do we have to do when we go back home? Keep on walkin’, keep on movin’, keep on creating still another meeting of this time, still another convention, all over the country, all over the world."

The night before, however, his words had been angrier, a defiant manifesto of resentful self-reliance that generated a torrent of applause:

I think we have to yell it loud. We have to say to the people of this country, and in particular the elite, the political elite of this country. We have to scream and say, "You know, it’s possible for citizens, ordinary citizens, independents, Americans, of all different backgrounds, of all different points of view — it’s possible for us to get together and share ideas and make some decisions about what we’re going to do without having a politician there to draw us all together." We really don’t need you. You are not required for us to be able to talk. We don’t need sound bites, and we don’t need specialists to be up on a podium and say, "If you want to impact on the policies of this country, you have to do it through us." We don’t need you.... To me, that’s what this wonderful, wonderful get-together is about.

PROMINENT INDEPENDENTS outside Newman and Fulani’s ambit are unlikely to see ChIP as the embodiment of a new independent movement. Ted Lowi, a Cornell political-science professor and long-time independent activist, hadn’t known ChIP was taking place; when he learned Newman and Fulani were two of the event’s leaders, he was immediately dismissive. "She’d like to be the leader of a party or independent movement she’s going to help form," he said of Fulani. "You can be sure she’ll be the leader of that little group, or else she won’t stay with it." Anderson, the former presidential candidate, also hadn’t heard of ChIP. He offered a similar take on the conference, remarking of Newman and Fulani, "I just cannot see myself following any banner raised by those two."

A political press corps accustomed to treating independents as exotic, mysterious creatures is likely to be more receptive. ChIP landed on the events calendar of the Note, ABC News’s widely read online political news summary. An Associated Press story posted on Newsday’s Web site advanced ChIP in press-release-style language: "Independent voters from around the country are attending a weekend conference to discuss their options and strategy for the 2004 presidential campaign." Meanwhile, ChIP’s conveners have succeeded in attracting notice from the major print media. A New York Times piece by Michael Janofsky — while not mentioning ChIP by name — included comments by Mangia and suggested that his group might constitute an "umbrella" that many of the nation’s independents could call home. Salit, meanwhile, has published columns on the attitudes of independent voters in major newspapers like the Arizona Republic and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. And a new magazine edited by Salit — the Neo-Independent, dedicated to the "politics of becoming"; just what these politics are supposed to help people become is unclear — is slated for roll-out this spring, just in time for the presidential stretch drive.

The day after ChIP concluded, I tried to reach Newman and Fulani. I wanted to know why so many prominent independents — Anderson, Perot, Ventura, Jeffords — had been absent, and how, given the conference’s lack of figures who might challenge the conveners for some sort of leadership role, they could convince people ChIP really represented a broad-based, national independent movement. My inquiry was referred to Salit, who bristled at its premise. "I’m not especially into convincing," she replied. "I’m into organizing and building tools for independent voters."

"Ross Perot does not consider himself an independent anymore," she added. "Jesse Ventura is not active in independent politics; he has a TV show. Jim Jeffords was invited to speak at the conference; he did not choose to attend. I don’t know whether [Anderson] in particular was invited, but the organization he works with, the Center for Voting and Democracy, was represented at our founding conference." (According to a Jeffords spokesman, the senator never received a formal invitation.) "We’re looking to reach out to grassroots independents all across America and bring them into the process so they have a voice," Salit concluded. "It doesn’t rely on Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura or Jim Jeffords or anybody like that. It involves ordinary people to create something new in American politics — a new source of leverage in American politics."

Salit’s response points to the inherent genius of ChIP. Controlling a specific political organization like the Reform Party requires working within an organizational framework; once you reach the top, there’s always the possibility somebody will navigate that same framework effectively enough to bring you down. Independents, however, are a vast and influential constituency without a national organization. And ChIP — as a "process," not a party — is something that Fulani, Newman, and their fellow conveners can control with impunity, a vehicle that gives them potentially unlimited access to the mainstream media and to interested but uninformed independents across the country.

As Anderson sees it, the notion that a cohesive American independent movement exists — and that it has any kind of widely accepted leadership — is far-fetched. He notes that this could work in Newman and Fulani’s favor. "There is really no single person that is sort of a guru of the movement of independents," Anderson says. "It’s too fluid; it’s too disorganized to even be called a movement. And I think they’re trying to seize the mantle for the very reason that I have just described. It’s out there for somebody to grab."

Given the cranky pride independents take in their own intractability, it might seem unlikely that they would accept any kind of self-appointed ruling group. But Newman, Fulani, and their colleagues have a knack for infusing independent politics with an air of drama, with desperation and great expectations. If enough people look to them as authorities as the 2004 election approaches, ChIP’s conveners could become — improbable as it may seem — a national political force, serving as intermediaries between the major parties and a constituency that never asked for them.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com