Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
In the Comments to my Guess Which Presidential Candidate Will Speak at Hempfest, and Which at Paul Festival? post last week, TPAZ asked if I knew of any “second-tier presidential debate” plans. It was a very good question for which I didn’t have an answer, so I said I’d look around. I’m very glad to say I found something (video above), very unhappy to say I missed it when it actually happened.
To give credit, I first found the information at Corrente, American Third Parties Presidential Debate 2012: Justice, Green, and Socialist Parties.
The Alternative Party Debate was hosted by the Maggie Phair Institute on April 21, 2012, at Echo Park United Methodist Church in Los Angeles. The Phair Institute “is an educational venture” promoting civic involvement, democracy, free speech, decent affordable housing, dependable public transit, a living wage, free education for all, universal health care, and world peace.
Participating candidates, and their party status at the time of the debate: Rocky Anderson (Justice Party nominee); Roseanne Barr (Green Party candidate); Stephen Durham (Peace and Freedom Socialist Party nominee); Peta Lindsay (Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee); Dr. Kent Mesplay (Green Party candidate); and Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party candidate).
Other alternative party candidates, and their status at the time, who were not at the debate include: Stewart Alexander (Peace & Freedom Party & Socialist candidate); Roger Gary (Libertarian Party candidate); Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate); Carl Person (Libertarian Party candidate); Buddy Roemer (Reform Party & Americans Elect Candidate); Danny Woodring (independent candidate); R. Lee Wrights (Libertarian Party candidate).
From The Maggie Phair Institute, about the debate:
Six candidates from four political parties presented their ideas on public policies to nearly 200 people in the audience and numerous representative of mass media. The debate was audio taped by radio station KPFK for airing on affiliate stations of the Pacifica Foundation.
The Young Turks from Current TV featured the debate on their April 23rd program.
So, about 200 attendees. When last I checked, the video at YouTube had received 2444 views. More will have used Pacifica and Current to hear the debate, though I have no idea about those numbers. Compared to the Big Two, very small numbers.
But, consider the context. Acknowledging a fairly quick search on my part, and with no criticism of the Institute or of the media present, apparently there was little attention provided the event beforehand, and not much afterward. This, of course, isn’t surprising. Only “serious” candidates deserve “serious” attention, and those in control of maintaining their “serious” roles in the Duopoly and the “press” which covers them work to keep that “serious” stuff all to themselves. You think, just maybe, it has something to do with the money involved?
Take another look at what the Phair Institute promotes: civic involvement, democracy, free speech, decent affordable housing, dependable public transit, a living wage, free education for all, universal health care, and world peace, and should have the time and inclination, check out the websites of some of the “alternative” party candidates.
Would the two Very Serious candidates, or the joined-at-the-pocketbook Corporate Parties they represent, ever seriously address such issues, with policy plans in place and intentions to follow-through?
Of course not. And that’s one of many reasons we need “alternative” parties, in the news, in debates, on the ballots, and in office.
I had not heard of this debate, either. I hadn’t been actively searching for such things, of course, but I think the point here is that you’d have had to to find out about it. That’s not to point fingers at the Phair Institute or anyone else, just a data point when we’re looking at the state of progressive activism and politics.
Agreed, Cujo. I was a bit frustrated, because I’d been looking, too. And what I found out about it was almost all done after the debate had happened.
As you put it, “looking at the state of progressive activism and politics.”
I’m always glad when I see so many people and organizations working, but even with FB, Twitter, etc., unless you happen to be on the right list or know someone or accidentally come across it, a lot is missed.
Joyce, thank you for looking into this and thank you for the shout out. It’s a shame time wasn’t spent thinking through the necessary marketing aspects of this debate. Let me be blunt; you can’t ask people to consider a group of people for the POTUS then treat it in a minimum fashion. I’s sure their hearts were in the right place but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Why hold only one debate in April? Why choose a church for 200 instead of a college campus, using a national college network for exposure? Why not arrange a pre and post debate discussion online? IMO, to the degree that it can be done, an alternative debate must ape the 1st tier debate to draw a comparison and participation. I still believe three fall debates with three candidates is warranted and can be achieved.
Joyce, thank you once again.
I had not heard of this debate, either. I hadn’t been actively searching for such things, of course, but I think the point here is that you’d have had to to find out about it.Cujo. strong>
Neither had I on both counts.
Thank you Joyce for following up on TPAZ’s query and thank you TPAZ for making that inquiry of Joyce.
C-span broadcast the Green Party’s ballot choice of Dr. Jill Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala a few weeks ago.
I just checked C-span to ascertain if “The ‘Alternative Party Debate’ 2012″ was broadcast by them earlier in the year and I found nothing to indicate that they did.
C-span is the broadcast outlet of last resort so to speak. If they didn’t find the time to broadcast that debate, forget about the main broadcast and cable outlets.
An important point, to be sure. If CSPAN-3 couldn’t nudge a few celebrity book signings or “most boring moments in Congress” retrospectives to give this debate some air, it’s hard to imagine anyone else would pay attention.
I’d love to see such a debate now. If it were moderated by someone serious (and I mean “serious” in the sense that they want ask serious questions), that would be a debate about ideas and the future of the country. There are lots of reasons that’s not a likely event, but it’s one presidential debate I’d be inclined to watch.