The Myth of the Independent
Everyone always talks about the "independent" voter. Around here, where I live, it's what people say when they don't want to tell the truth, which is that they vote the straight party line about 90% of the time.
"Independent" is a code word. The left-wing media use it to disguise their almost-unilateral party affiliation with the Democratic Party. "I'm a registered Independent," is what they all smugly coo, when pressed, as if that settles that. Regular people use the term for a few (excellent) reasons: 1) It can shut off a fractious political discussion -- to call yourself an "independent" is to call yourself a bore, essentially, to the kind of people who really want to get into a hot and angry debate. Where I live, in Venice Beach, California, it's often the only way I can get from inside the Whole Foods to my car without being waylaid by a lot of noisy hippie activists; 2) if you find yourself in one of those awful conversations, it's a great way to establish your bona fides -- "Hey, I'm an independent, I examine each candidate's positions, I'm totally unaffiliated. But even I wouldn't vote for Palin/Bush/Obama/Pelosi/Whomever"; 3) it's a way of saying "I'm a conservative, but sometimes squishy."
That's who voted for Barack Obama, by the way. That's who put him into office: Independents. Meaning: voters who are basically conservative, but also squishy.
They wanted to vote for a moderate, inspiring African-American. They wanted to vote for a sensible middle-of-the-roader -- maybe a touch center/left, but what's the harm in that? So was Clinton. And if his election might inspire a renewal among the African-American underclass, well, maybe it's worth the trade.
So they looked at Barack Obama and they saw what they wanted to see.
(And let's give them a break, too: it's independents -- even the self-delusional kind -- who usually put a president in office. We need them...)
Now, apparently, they've got buyer's remorse. Big time, according to a survey by Resurgent Republic, a polling outfit run by former RNC chair Ed Gillespie and pollster Whit Ayres. From Peter Roff's column in U. S. News & World Report:
"On health insurance, government spending, environmental regulation, and immigration enforcement," Resurgent Republic says, “Independents are more aligned with the conservative argument, which is also closer to their placement of congressional Republicans.” The critical voter bloc in the upcoming election, they also perceive Obama as "further to the left of congressional Democrats on health insurance, government spending, environmental regulation, and immigration enforcement."
The concerns expressed by Independents, on the other hand, generally marry up nicely to what the Republicans in Congress have been saying for much of the last two years. More Independents, the survey found, “favor individual responsibility in purchasing health insurance than those who support universal coverage provided by the federal government” and that the federal government “should do more to exercise fiscal discipline even in light of more spending to help the economy.”
And this shouldn't surprise us, really. There aren't any true independents. Just Republicans trying to get to their cars.
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
You can call me mugwump.
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Independents (genuine ones) are the people who, two weeks ago, didn't know who John Boehner was, and if they know now, it's only because the President mentioned Boehner's name, blaming him, about fifty times this week. They don't deserve to decide elections, but they do.
Re: The Myth of the Independent
In the same vein, there's something buried in the term "moderate." I've noticed on facebook that a lot of my former college classmates, who were proud "Democrats" or "liberals" while George W. Bush was president, have either removed their political affiliation altogether, or changed it to "moderate." Inversely, many of the folks who identified as "moderates" in college now identify as "conservative" or "libertarian." Thus, whenever I see someone describe themselves as a "moderate," I understand it to mean that they're embarassed or ashamed to state their true beliefs.
Re: The Myth of the Independent
I don't know, etoiledunord. I rather like the fact that people tune politics out most of the time. They're busy with lives and jobs and important things. What we need, I think, is fewer things for politicians to do, so that they can go about their business with less supervision.
The segment that pollsters call "independent likely voters," though, aren't really independent. I mean, they've voted in elections, and they have a preference, it's just that for whatever reason they've decided not to declare it. From my perspective, they're just center/right voters who can't bring themselves to join the Republican party.
Jul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
This is my favorite political topic, but 200 words won't do.
Pollsters and pundits have failed, utterly, to differentiate the various gradations among "independents", taking them at their word that they approach each election as thoughtful folks who take each candidate and each issue on it's merits, carefully weighing before casting their votes - as though they're the Anthony Kennedy's of the body politic.
Bunk.
I would bet that 80% of left-leaning independents have never cast a vote for the GOP.
And 80% of right-leaning independents have never cast a vote for a Democrat.
The difference in 2010, one fervently hopes, is that the insane policies of the past two years will make sufficient, albeit fleeting, inroads into the left-independents and stiffen spines on the right.
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
You nailed it, Rob, and had me laughing with recognition. When I lived in California - and much of the time not far from you in Venice Beach - I used to shut down the Democrat prattle by claiming I voted for Ralph Nader. I did vote for Nader, as a protest vote, since in almost every election the Democrats had a lock on the state and a sense of futility often prevailed.
Remember the 'Reagan Democrats'? I suspect they were the 'independents' of their day who were credited with electing him.
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
My mindset may be naive, but I generally consider myself "independent" and staunchly "conservative." This is because I prefer to formulate it as such:
Democrat - Republican - Independent
Liberal - Moderate - Conservative
Note that I don't put Independent in the "middle" like I do "moderate." I'm "independent" because while I may lean strongly to the right, I don't pledge allegiance to any political party - I'm just not inclined to be told what to believe and how to think. Thus, I prefer my political independence. And I don't think that's squishy, personally.
Kenneth is right, that as a "conservative" independent, I don't recall the last time I voted for a Democrat. But I will still cling to my "independence." Proudly.
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Jim Chase: My mindset may be naive, but I generally consider myself "independent" and staunchly "conservative." This is because I prefer to formulate it as such:
Democrat - Republican - Independent
Liberal - Moderate - Conservative
Note that I don't put Independent in the "middle" like I do "moderate." I'm "independent" because while I may lean strongly to the right, I don't pledge allegiance to any political party - I'm just not inclined to be told what to believe and how to think. Thus, I prefer my political independence. And I don't think that's squishy, personally.
Kenneth is right, that as a "conservative" independent, I don't recall the last time I voted for a Democrat. But I will still cling to my "independence." Proudly. · Sep 14 at 9:21am
You and me both, Jim. Exactly. Word for word. I love it. Thanks. I was trying to think of a way to say this, but you said it all much better than I could.
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
I think what Diane (and Rob) describe is the use of 'independent" and "moderate" as self-protective cloaking devices. When used by the MSM, "Moderate" seems to me to be applied mostly to Republicans, i.e. "moderate Republican" just means marginally acceptable to the speaker/writer. It is a kindness meant to remove the faint pejorative inherent in "Republican." Democrats are by the same view always acceptable, so the "moderate" is unneeded and no adjective is applied unless the Democrat self-describes as "progressive" or "liberal"
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Rob Long:
"Hey, I'm an independent, I examine each candidate's positions, I'm totally unaffiliated..."
This sentence makes no sense to me. The reason I (albeit reluctantly) affiliate with a party is because candidates' positions do tend to differ more-or-less consistently along party lines. If you're examining each candidate's positions, how do you not come to that conclusion? To be really unaffiliated, you'd have to vote according to something else, like niceness of teeth and hair (which I'm sure some people do).
I've noticed especially that academics with galloping Leftosis self-identify as moderates to be, I dunno, more respectable or something (or maybe in their milieu, they are the moderates -- scary thought).
Heck, I've even seen "libertarian" used in the same chameleonic fashion. You wouldn't believe the Statists sorts I've heard call themselves libertarians. What they usually mean is "I want the long crooked nose of Uncle Sam out of my sex and drug life, but otherwise I welcome the nose!" not "Get that nose out of my face, period."
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
While I think much of what you write here is worth reading, and true, I do think there are other categories of independents than "those who don't want to tell the truth." Your "squishy conservative" comes close to what I mean.
There are conservatives who are pro-gay marriage, pro-"comprehensive immigration reform," and who believe that making abortion a crime would be a mistake -- note that doesn't mean that they necessarily think abortion is a "Right" or at all right, just that making it a crime wouldn't solve the problem.
These are independent voters too. They are socially liberal -- but not libertarian libertine -- and ardently conservative individuals. They aren't merely conservative on fiscal issues, they are conservative on social ones as well. They value religion, tradition, and virtue -- but they also have an ingrained sense of America's particular expression of Natural Right, Equality of Opportunity, and Limited Government.
Jul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Heck, I've even seen "libertarian" used in the same chameleonic fashion. You wouldn't believe the Statists sorts I've heard call themselves libertarians. What they usually mean is "I want the long crooked nose of Uncle Sam out of my sex and drug life, but otherwise I welcome the nose!" not "Get that nose out of my face, period." · Sep 14 at 9:57am
I just do not understand that assertion.
I have never met a "statist libertarian".
I suppose there are some delusional folks who like to say they're libertarians because it sounds....edgy.
But they're not Libertarians.
Usually, they're just nudists.
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Kenneth
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Heck, I've even seen "libertarian" used in the same chameleonic fashion. You wouldn't believe the Statists sorts I've heard call themselves libertarians. What they usually mean is "I want the long crooked nose of Uncle Sam out of my sex and drug life, but otherwise I welcome the nose!" not "Get that nose out of my face, period."
I just do not understand that assertion.
I didn't say that it was comprehensible, merely that it is. Don't shoot the messenger, eh?
Lucky you. I've seen infestations of 'em.
Yep. That's about the size of it.
Well, the most egregious example I can think of actually prefers long, floral-print dresses and big hats. She's sort of a prudish libertine... very weird...
Jul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
"Don't blame me. I voted for Perot."
May '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Exactly. Libertarians I encounter are generally into foreign policy isolationism, eliminating the drug laws, and sexual freedom (as though anyone out there cares what they do, these days). I don't see them seriously opposing statism, other than in idle conversation at the medical MJ therapy party.
I will acknowledge that Kenneth, while wrong in this view, is a "more rubble, less trouble" foreign policy guy.
Sep '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
I believe it can be the lazy mans escape. People who say they consider each politician and issue on the merits simply haven't developed a political philosophy. They are making near term decisions and have no overall goal or destination . These people aren't aware, or perhaps are in denial, that there are fundamental worldviews and there are really only two basic forces in effect, collective rights vs. individual rights.
Behind every decision we make there is an underlying belief system or assumption. Once a person understands what those are, it is easy to choose sides. You now have an overarching political philosophy and can make decisions based on the meta perspective rather than issue by issue.
For me Ill take the politician who I believe will advance the cause of freedom and individual rights, which these days are hardly ever Democrats. Squishy and/or statist Republicans can sometimes do more overall damage than left wing Democrats, so sometimes there is a naked political calculation to be made, but it is all in service to the goal of promoting individual rights and maximum freedom for each person.
May '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
I sometimes call myself independent for the same reason Jim and Ursula do. I nearly always vote Republican, but that doesn't mean I always agree with the party or that the party can expect me to defend them when they act stupidly.
Polls regarding independents and politics in general are a bad joke. Most people have mixed views. If we had more political parties (which I'm not advocating), then you wouldn't see so many people voting for Republicans and Democrats. Other parties fail in many areas because nobody believes they can accomplish anything in a system controlled by those two (short-term thinking).
Sometimes, "independent" is a way of telling politicians we expect results.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 10:40amJul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Duane Oyen
Exactly. Libertarians I encounter are generally into foreign policy isolationism, eliminating the drug laws, and sexual freedom (as though anyone out there cares what they do, these days). I don't see them seriously opposing statism, other than in idle conversation at the medical MJ therapy party.
I will acknowledge that Kenneth, while wrong in this view, is a "more rubble, less trouble" foreign policy guy. · Sep 14 at 10:19am
I love how you guys tell us Libertarians who we are and what we believe.
Once again, let me make it simple:
We're Constitutional conservatives who believe in the 10th Amendment. We see big government at the greatest threat to liberty. We're far less "statist" than the social cons.
And we believe in a robust national-security policy. We just don't believe in squandering American lives and treasure needlessly.
As for the drugs and sex stuff, we don't care. Let the people of California disport as they will. Let the people of Utah make different choices.
Sep '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
A couple of years ago I stopped using the appellation RINO, because it assumes the Republican party has an ideology. It doesn't. It is just a political party, Just because Republicans are generally more conservative than Democrats doesn't mean being a Republican makes someone a conservative.
Jul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
@Kenneth Liberaltarians: Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson for example.
As for the hippies following me to my car, I have a carry permit.