Interview With A (Losing) Candidate

By Brian Webber

Interview With A Candidate
By Brian D Webber

BW: I'm here with Patrick West, Natural Law (http://www.natural-law.org) party candidate for the second Congressional distrcit in the state of Colorado, a state which has gotten some attention in the national news lately because of the heated and very close Senate race between incumbent Wayne Allard and Tom Strickland. Before we get into your platform and your district, I'd like to ask you what you think of this Senate race which is SO close it's been talked about at length on Meet The Press with Tim Russert.

PW: It has been an interesting race, and a very negative race. It is unfortunate that negativity has to play such a big part in campaigning. Candidates spend more time talking down about their "opponent" that you never really hear about they stand on the issue, which leads me to believe that perhaps they don't have much of a platform to stand on. I believe that campaigning is not a competition, but a way to increase awareness of all of the possibilities and the great potential for introducing solutions to critical problems facing this nation. Imagine how confident people would be in our political system if all viewpoints were heard and not just the views of the two major parties. Perhaps people would be inspired to participate in the elections if they felt that they were being represented and their voices being heard. I will be supporting Rick Stanley for US Senate in this race. I hope that people will go out and investigate their options in this one.

BW: That's very interesting, but another thing some people have suggested to aid voter confidence, in addition to more candidates, is including a No Confidence option on the ballot. Some places already have it in fact. In Nevada in June of 1990, None of the Above came in 2nd in the Republican primary. Do you think a None of the Above option on all elections would encourage candidates to work harder?

PW: I would definitely support the addition of an option on the ballot for all elections for "None of the Above". I believe that this would be a clear indication to the people in government that the citizens of this country are fed up with business as usual. I also believe that this would improve voter turnout as more and more people do not believe that their elected representatives truly represent the constituents of their district. It would also show just how disenfranchised voters are with the current political system and the current political climate of constant bickering and partisanship. The Colorado Coalition of Independent Political Parties (CCIPP, http://www.ColoradoVoices.org is considering what actions to take during 2003, and this is definitely something that we will begin educating people on, as well as instant runoff voting. Personally, I will also begin looking into an initiative for 2004 for public financing of our elections. After the great success of this system in a few other states, such as Maine, I believe that Colorado is ready. I would like to see other ballot reforms as well, such as removing party designation from the ballot, same day voter registration as is being promoted with Amendment 30. In terms of campaign finance reform I would like to see the elimination of PACs and the ability for past office holders from becoming lobbyists after serving office. Other election reforms, I would like to see instant runoff voting and declaring election day a mandatory national holiday and begin the education process for proportional representation as opposed to our winner take all system.

BW: Jello Biafra (former frontman for punk-rock group Dead Kennedys) discussed the No Confidence option on his spoken-word aldum I Blow Minds For A Living, and he also suggested that in any race where None of the Above actually won, a special election should be held like when a Congressman dies or resigns, but with two NEW candidates instead of "the two bozos who got rejected the first time." *laughs* Anyway, you mentioned Amendment 30, an amendment I actually worked on as a petition circulator this past summer. Could you explain it in a nutshell to VoU's readers, in case they don't have the time to check out the official website for it? (http://www.YesOn30.org)

PW: Amendment 30 lets eligible citizens change their address or register to vote on Election Day, as six states already have done. Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow for same day registration. Their voter turnout is 15% higher than others states, and they have had zero cases of election irregularities. The president of the County Clerks' Association of Wyoming writes, "For nearly a decade now, Wyoming has enjoyed the benefits of EDVR [Election Day Voter Registration]. Those benefits have included greater participation in the election process resulting in increased voter turnout. I believe that Colorado deserves a system such as this. It is a step in the right direction. Again we need to look into election reform and campaign finance reform where people will again feel that they have a voice in government, that their vote really does count, and that they are truly being represented in government. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Public Financing of elections, Proportional Representation. These are all systems that we must pursue in this state.

BW: You talk about election reform quite a bit on your website as well, and your stance on the more important issues can be found on your website. But some people here at VoU may not have time to check it for themselves. Can you explain in one paragraph the platform you are running for Congress on, and also, could you say why you chose the U.S. House as opposed to the U.S. Senate or the State Senate?

PW: My platform is a life supporting platform. My platform includes support for prevention-oriented, holistic health care; consciousness-based education, allowing the student to take full advantage of the creative intelligence by focusing on the student rather then the content; crime prevention through proven programs such as restorative justice and enlightened sentencing; sustainable, organic agriculture, providing the most nutritious foods to a growing population; animal advocacy; renewable energy and energy conservation; and creating permanent, positive peace by co-creating more harmonious international relations. Why US House instead of US Senate or State General Assembly. First of all, I have run for this office once before, in 1998. And still today we continue to see the same problems that we saw in 1998. If the Democrats or Republicans had the solutions to the critical problems facing this country, you think we would have heard about them by now, but we have not. We continue to have sky rocketing health care costs with declining health, high rates of crime, declining educational outcome, the decimation of our environment, the destruction of our rural communities and farming communities, and we continue to utilize outdated modes of foreign policy that focuses on the use of force and violence as a means to create peace. I think enough is enough, let's get someone in there who cares.

BW: Some people have suggested that perhaps minor parties shouldn't run Presidential candidates until more of them hold positions such as the one you're running for, and other smaller offices such as Mayor and City Council. Do you agree with this? If so or if not, why?

PW: I believe that it is very important to run candidates for city council, mayor and other smaller offices. This is truly at the grassroots level. But I also see running candidates for state offices and federal offices and even President to be important as well. These are more high-profile races and will help get the message of the party out to the people. Voter guides will include our platform points, candidate forums allow our candidates to get out and increase awareness of their campaign and the party itself, advertising in papers, doing fundraisers, getting volunteers involved at this level is very important in getting the word out. And when you have a candidate for President, you get the message out to the entire nation and the world. Dr. John Hagelin, Presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in 1992, 1996 and 2000, was very successful at increasing awareness of the Natural Law Party and its platform and ideas, enlivening the consciousness of the individual to the possibilities that still exist today. So I see it important to run local candidates as well as candidates in state and federal campaigns as well.

BW: So, the election is only a few days away. Are you nervous at all? [NOTE: This interview was done by e-mail, and unfortunately, the reply did not get back to me until after the Mid-Term election, where Patrick came in 4th out of five candidates. Incumbent Democrat Mark Udall won, despite staying under the radar for most of the election, running NO TV or Radio ads whatsoever. At least none that i could see/hear over the cacophony of BS attack ads from Allard, Strickland, Matsunaka, beauprez, ad nauseum.]

PW: I was not nervous at all. I knew that somehow I would win in this election, maybe not win in terms of getting the most votes, but winning in terms of increasing support for our message, increasing the hope and keeping our dreams alive. Our current government is not sustainable, it will not last. As long as we keep increasing awareness of the possibilities, when it is our time, we will be ready. We've got a lot of education to go, but we are making a difference. I am proud of this fact. The hope is alive, and because of that I am not nervous about the results of election day!

BW: Well, I guess with the election over now I should get to wrapping this up. Just a few more questions though. First, there is a bit of controversy surrounding our party because of a NL sponsored commercial that ran in England. It has been the source of much ridicule by the like of NitCentral (a board I frequent) and it is the ONLY thing anyone is willing to bring up whenever I discuss my affiliation. It involves, if the information is correct, a man meditating on a flying carpet. How do you respond to this?

PW: The Natural Law Party is all about prevention oriented solutions, focusing on the individual by promoting programs and policies that promote good health, education that focuses on the lerner, crime prevention that focuses on individual and societal stress, creating permanent, positive peace throughout the world, sustainable, organic agriculture, renewable energy, sustainable business developement, and more... But people aren't willing to look beyond some things that they have "heard" of, or some "information" that they have received about the Natural Law Party. Yes, we do mention Transcendental Meditation in our platform because this technology has been scientifically proven, in over 600 scientific studies, to greatly improve health and educational outcomes, greatly decrease crime and residivism, reduce dependence on alcohol and drugs, improve the collective consciousness of the population through group practice, and much much more. But TM is not the basis of the party. The basis of the party is preventing problems from occurring in the first place by focusing on proven programs and technologies. If a program were to come along that also had scientific backing and could solve and prevent problems from occurring, then we would accept that technology with open arms. It's all about seeking out the best possible solutions to the critical problems facing this nation. The Natural Law Party could remove the references to the TM technique and still have a far superior platform to the Democrats or Republicans, or even the Greens or Libertarians in my humble opinion. You can't force someone to be green, they have to want to be green for it to work; and you can't just eliminate people's dependence on government (by eliminating government programs) and expect people to automatically be self governing. You enliven the consciousness of the people to the unlimited possibilities and potential that lies within. Then people will recognize the impact that their thoughts and actions have on others around them and the planet, they then want to be green, they then become self governing. Look beyond the label and look deep into the platform of a candidate. Do they offer scientifically proven solutions, solutions that have been peer reviewed and utilized throughout the world? Open your minds to the possibilities. A closed mind has never been the hallmark of a functioning intelligence!

BW: OK, thanks! This has been fun, and I think I've done a fairly good job consdiering this is my first ever interview. One last question before we call it a night (or day). I'm sure you've heard all the political party jokes, such as "How can you tell if a Democrat is lying? He's telling who he hasn't had sex with" or "How can you tell if a Libertarian is lying? He's telling you he can get elected." Tell me, just to end this on a high note, what would the punchline to the joke, How can you tell if a Natural Law man is lying, be? >:-)

PW: He's telling you that he participated in a debate!

Writings \| Discussion \| Authors \| Help \| Search \| Home
Copyright Notice \| Privacy Policy \| Contact