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 :
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Aaron, I think we're agreeing-through-disagreeing here.
Leadership that seizes this moment where the Constitution is being discussed, that gives reasoning about the Constitution sex-appeal (like Claire?), and then encourages people not to reason shallowly, according to the buzzwords of the moment, but more deeply, using, oh, I don't know, penumbral documents like the Federalist Papers, which help explain what the Constitution actually meant, would be ideal. This kind of strong leadership I could get behind. This is the sort who could make local government a reality again.
Unfortunately, many people associate "strong leadership" with "great man" theory, the idea that "strong leaders" are those like Wilson and FDR, who centralize power, who use charisma to give the masses what-for instead of freedom.
It's much harder to be a strong leader for small government than it is to be a strong leader for big government, as you probably know. It takes more self-control and even self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of not getting your way just 'cuz you can.
May '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Kenneth
1) And we believe in a robust national-security policy. We just don't believe in squandering American lives and treasure needlessly.
2) 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.
1) Not all, Kenneth- in most cases in my experience, there are more of David Boaz (a wacky "no blood for oil" fruitcake) than of Glenn Reynolds.
2) I agree politically, not morally- as long as it doesn't hit me. But when California does something that seriously bleeds over into my yard, whether it is gay marriage pushing the Privileges and Immunities clause, or back yard hemp for sale, we have to address it. That's why the 10th Amendment addresses the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. Wickard was an execrable decision on its face, but something like it, built on a better underlying case, needs to be in place.
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Duane Oyen
Wickard was an execrable decision on its face, but something like it, built on a better underlying case, needs to be in place.
Something like Wickard? Really??? Loopy leapin' lizards! Could you explain what you mean by that?
Jul '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
I've been thinking: I shouldn't blame good folks like y'all for misunderstanding libertarians.
The fault lies with those groovy, anti-establishment types who have adopted the label.
Libertarianism, because it isn't an organized movement, has yet to establish and enunciate a clear set of principles. Without that, you can't separate the wheat from the chaff and expel people who are fundamentally frivolous.
Anyone can call themselves a libertarian. The problem is that those who speak most loudly are folks like David Boaz; an opportunistic publicity hound who, in order to sell his books on CNN, NPR and Bill Maher's show, emphasize the loony, anarchistic bits, which are then assumed, just because the guy managed to weasel his way into Cato, to be mainstream libertarianism.
So I can understand why y'all would have an inaccurate view of real libertarians.
Honestly, we're just like you.
We just happen to think that if a guy across the state line wants to marry a panda and smoke dope, it's none of our business. And none of the Federal government's business, either.
After all, America has survived worse.
May '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
There's always a balance that must be struck between what people are called to be and what they are free to be. I agree completely that the emphasis should be on the free will of individual persons and communities.
On the other hand, I'm not afraid to get in my neighbor's face if I see him doing something wrong. One of my favorite movies is McLintock! (the exclamation mark is part of the title). McLintock warns immigrants to the town that they're fools to try to farm the dry land. A politician gives him grief for speaking up, but McLintock never interferes with their right to be foolish. Later on, McLintock punches someone for endangering a life, rather than let him go unpunished or rely on police. That's proper society, in my eyes. People stay involved in each other's lives, but not through government.
I'm what some would call a social conservative, but that doesn't mean I want government involvement. Economic conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians generally agree on the priority of reducing government, I think.
Incidentally, on the issue of leadership, y'all might appreciate this video.
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Duane Oyen
Wickard was an execrable decision on its face, but something like it, built on a better underlying case, needs to be in place.
Something like Wickard? Really??? Loopy leapin' lizards! Could you explain what you mean by that? · Sep 14 at 3:36pm
I am with you Midget. As I recall Wickard v Filburn (New Deal era, farmer busted for growing wheat on his own land to feed to his own livestock sustained under commerce clause) is going to be the seminal case that sustains Obamacare (you are going to use the ER and then you will be affecting commerce so you have to buy insurance). Duane, what is a more benign version of that? Overturning Wickard would be the freedom-enhancing equivalent of Brown v Board of Education
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 5:50pmRe: The Myth of the Independent
I live in LA, too, and when I hear "I'm an Independent," I always ask "who is the last Republican you voted for? Any? Ever? None?" Sputtter sputter... Yep, very Independent and ever so thoughtful.
May '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Duane Oyen
Wickard was an execrable decision on its face, but something like it, built on a better underlying case, needs to be in place.
Something like Wickard? Really??? Loopy leapin' lizards! Could you explain what you mean by that? · Sep 14 at 3:36pm
Sure, Pilgrim and Midget. There are actual legitimate situations where some type of commerce takes place entirely within the borders of one state but affects commerce nationally, and the feds need to be able to have control. Wickard is not such a case, as we all agree.
But, for just one example, suppose a drug company in California decided to produce strychnine-laced laetrile and market it exclusively in California, and they bought some California legislators to pass enabling legislation that prohibited warning labels, etc. Without some means to preserve FDA authority over that and other drugs, necessary (and too often unnecessary) federal regulatory authority would collapse.
Does FDA need to be fixed? Of course- all you need to know to demonstrate that is to see how they restrict cancer treatments for the terminally-ill. But there is a happy medium, and establishing it is Congress' job, not California's.
Aug '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Thanks for the explanation, Duane.
Jun '10
Re: The Myth of the Independent
Duane Oyen #48: "But, for just one example, suppose a drug company in California decided to produce strychnine-laced laetrile and market it exclusively in California, and they bought some California legislators to pass enabling legislation that prohibited warning labels, etc. Without some means to preserve FDA authority over that and other drugs, necessary (and too often unnecessary) federal regulatory authority would collapse."
Duane, we have drifted off topic but your last comment begs the question of the necessity of FDA oversight of this situation. Without over-broad interpretation of the commerce clause, your example is still Wickard, maybe with a "general welfare" gloss. A proper respect for the 10th Amendment would say that Californians should be left to produce and regulate their own drugs. Charles Murray in What it Means to be a Libertarian makes a persuasive (to me) argument that a free-market solution could (and should) replace the FDA. Murray posits commercial entities something like the Underwriter's Lab to test and certify drugs allowing informed consumers, guided by their physicians, the liberty of choosing a course of treatment.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 12:46pm