Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. — George Washington, Farewell Address
With a couple of big elections coming up in the near future, everyone is wondering whether the shortcomings of the Bush administration are enough to drive voters away and give the Democrats a chance to regain power. As with every election, victory largely comes down to who can win over the independent voters who make up about a third of the electorate. As elected officials from both parties underperform and disappoint the voters the number of independents has been growing as disaffected members drift away from the parties. These alienated voters are the key to winning more and more elections.
While both parties can count on their partisans fairly reliably, the independents can go either way, so most campaign efforts are directed at winning them over. Although their core constituency is slightly smaller, in recent elections the Republicans have won over more of the independent vote and that has given them victory after victory. To reverse that trend the Democrats need to find a way to appeal to those independents more than the Republicans do.
As has been demonstrated again and again since campaigns started heavily 'going negative' in the 1980s, voters find it a lot easier to focus on the negative than the positive. It's easier to win votes by smearing your opponent than by promoting your own ideas and it's easier to lose an election by committing a faux pas than it is to win an election by doing good works.
In this negative atmosphere both parties tend to be judged by their most extreme elements. And both parties certainly contain some wacky extremists whose views are shared by only a fraction of their own party, much less the general population. Independents are mostly relatively moderate politically, so they often face the unpleasant challenge of figuring out which party's radicals hold positions they find least unacceptable.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
Dave, nice thought-provoking article, though I question some of your premises. As an example, I'd say that it's Conservatives, not Independents, that are "hostile to government." I would describe Independents more as "indifferent to government." I think they're interested in the end result, and don't care about ideology; therefore, whether government or private enterprise works better in a given area, they want the one that works better.
The religious right does attempt to infringe upon small groups--gays and women seeking abortions--but I don't know that independents say "what do I care?" I suggest instead that they question government interfering in a woman's decision to have an abortion--which in some cases they deem less important than the fetus' right to life--and may question intolerance toward gays, while not necessarily supporting "gay marriage."
I disagree with "most people don't plan to commit a murder so they don't mind the death penalty." People have mixed views on the death penalty--those in the middle acknowledge its barbarism but perhaps see it as an effective deterrent. I have never met anyone who says the death penalty is OK because THEY aren't going to commit murder.
On guns, the independent understands the right to bear arms but is genuinely concerned about the level of gun crime, so he may be open to background checks and other reasonable compromises.
In the end your conclusion may be somewhat valid, but I question your analysis of some of the issues confronted by the independent voter.
2 - Dave Nalle
Dave, nice thought-provoking article, though I question some of your premises. As an example, I'd say that it's Conservatives, not Independents, that are "hostile to government." I would describe Independents more as "indifferent to government."
In my experience everyone except for a portion of the democratic party is basically negative and distrusting about government, though I can see how that would appear as indifference when the government isn't directly harassing someone.
I think they're interested in the end result, and don't care about ideology; therefore, whether government or private enterprise works better in a given area, they want the one that works better.
Which in almost every case means private enterprise.
The religious right does attempt to infringe upon small groups--gays and women seeking abortions--but I don't know that independents say "what do I care?" I suggest instead that they question government interfering in a woman's decision to have an abortion--which in some cases they deem less important than the fetus' right to life--and may question intolerance toward gays, while not necessarily supporting "gay marriage."
I agree that most independents probably favor abortion and gay rights. But at the same time, when offered the choice between voting for those small groups they support on a moral basis and voting for their own self-interest they go for what's best for them.
I disagree with "most people don't plan to commit a murder so they don't mind the death penalty." People have mixed views on the death penalty--those in the middle acknowledge its barbarism but perhaps see it as an effective deterrent. I have never met anyone who says the death penalty is OK because THEY aren't going to commit murder.
I agree that most people aren't likely to SAY that's why they are willing to accept the death penalty, but I think it's part of the underlying reasoning. Murderers are bad people. I'm not a bad person. Since I'm not a bad person I don't much care what happens to bad people.
On guns, the independent understands the right to bear arms but is genuinely concerned about the level of gun crime, so he may be open to background checks and other reasonable compromises.
This is certainly one which is harder to analyze. It's certainly not clear if the average voter understands that gun control has no deterrent effect on gun crime. But at the same time the basic suspicion of government comes into play. If you've ever bought a gun - and most Americans and therefore most independent voters have - you know that the registration process involves some very intrusive and questionable paperwork.
In the end your conclusion may be somewhat valid, but I question your analysis of some of the issues confronted by the independent voter.
I may have erred slighty in the direction of making issues more clearcut and absolute than they always are, but that's the nature of making a point.
Dave
3 - gonzo marx
of course there is always stuff like this...
and Abramhoff etc...
i also find it quite amusing an avowed partisan tries to delineate the thoughts and positions of Independants
but a decent read, overall...for what it is...more campaign content
Excelsior!
4 - Geo
Good article. You forgot the part about customer service. American's generally like good customer service. We like to walk into a store and be greeted and helped, in a professional, geneial manner. The Democrats I've seen lately are complainers, shouters, hatefilled, snarling dogs. Hardly the genial customer service representative that I like to see helping me. I really don't want a miserable, hateful, screaming, cursing representative as my selection on the ballet. So there is going to have to be some radical change in those representing the DNC, if they really want my vote.
I'm not really into those who want to fight-fight-fight or to squash the opposition. I want the public servants in this country to get things done, as a team whose goal is to keep the ship of state running smoothly, effectively and efficiently.
5 - Jet in Columbus
Tell me sonething Dave? What exactly is that donkey doing to that elephant in your graphic there?
6 - Dave Nalle
i also find it quite amusing an avowed partisan tries to delineate the thoughts and positions of Independants
There's no one more independent than me, Gonzo. Keep in mind that I was a Libertarian party activist for almost 30 years and only went Republican when it became clear that the LP was going nowhere. I've voted for candidates from three parties and for independents, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about. And even you should be familiar enough with my writing to know that I'm hardly a GOP main-liner.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
We like to walk into a store and be greeted and helped, in a professional, geneial manner.
Up to a point I suppose. I really hate the customer service you get at some places - Radio Shack comes to mind - where they're in your face before you even have a chance to look around and basically follow you around the store desperate to help -in other words to earn a commission.
dave
8 - gonzo marx
and, as you well know ...i defend many of your positions, and argue against others...
but i still stand by my statement that you are a member of the GOP
and an apologist for this Administration
Excelsior!
9 - Dave Nalle
Tell me sonething Dave? What exactly is that donkey doing to that elephant in your graphic there?
Not what you think, you twisted man. They're merging together and becoming a single two-headed being I've dubbed the "Elephonkey".
Dave
10 - Jet in Columbus
Oh, okay, that's what I thought
It was a joke-a ha ha
never assume.
by the way I just endorsed you on your Iraq string
11 - Dave Nalle
and, as you well know ...i defend many of your positions, and argue against others...
but i still stand by my statement that you are a member of the GOP
and an apologist for this Administration
I make excuses - or at least explain and justify things - for more than just this administration. When people are unreasoningly hostile to something I find myself compelled to make them see from a different point of view. I've done it for Bill Clinton and for other non-gop figures.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
to comment #11...
i can and will only speak about what i have read/experienced first hand...
but i do know i have read you defend some of the Slick Willie shyte...and that you and i have often agreed on many "social" Issues
you say...
*I make excuses - or at least explain and justify things *
the very definition of an Apologist...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
13 - Jet in Columbus
Now kids play nice, or I'll have to get the leather out!
14 - Dave Nalle
Yes, gonzo, but the point is that i'm an apologist for everyone. I just don't like to see people blowing off any perspective but their own.
Dave
15 - gonzo marx
perspective i can hold Respect for...
bullshit and excuses i have less patience for
Personal Responsibility....silly of me, i know
if they at least admit when they fucked up, and then do their best to fix a problem, i can get behind them...no matter who
but fucking up and then shouting "stay the course" is horseshit...
and those who would be an apologist for such offend my sense of Ethics on a visceral level
i don't expect such from anyone else but myself, and don't care if any Agree....it is my own Position and Choice, and i take full Responsibility for it
out of Respect , i offer it as elucidation and explanation for why i hold some of the positions i do
i am quite capable of Honoring a Foe, even while contesting against what i think of as something inherently Wrong
Excelsior!
16 - Dave Nalle
I can't disagree with you on most of that, gonzo. I agree that accountability matters as does admitting responsibility. I disagree on where we should draw the line as far as which actions demand that they be addressed and which ones are excusable when looked at in the proper light.
Your inclination in dealing with the administration is to never cut them any slack. I cut them as much slack as I'd give anyone else to be a bit venal, a bit arrogant and a bit machiavellian. I think it's to be expected. IMO my standard is realistic and yours is idealistic. Where I draw the line is at the intent to do harm, and I just don't see much of that in this administration for all their myriad flaws.
Dave
17 - gonzo marx
i understand you point..and still reject it
i DO hold our elected Representatives to a high standard...
the Standard is basically the Rule of fucking Law and to uphold the Oath of Office the miserable bastards have taken
know..i am realistic enough to know that such is a rarity...yet i find it inexcusable to NOT point out the shortcomings when they are blatantly obvious...and to forment and incite ridicule and Prosecution when warranted
we differ on this Administration's violation of FISA, as an example...
i want the Law to be upheld, you consider it a minor thing to so blatantly violate the 4th and possibly 5th amendments
this is a singular example, but shows the vast rift between out thoughts
you might wonder why i sometimes become vehement in my opposition to some of your writing...the Answer is simple enough
i do think you have a decent Mind, and a firm Understanding of the Principles involved...yet, for partisan purposes...you bash one side and act the apologist for another
and tho i belong to neither side nor gang...the laissez faire attitude of folks such as yourself makes the vile corruption of our elected Representatives, if not possible, at least more rampant
and so...i remain a Foe...call me Idealistic if you like, i care not...
but i'll not relent a single iota, my own Ethics will not allow such
nuff said?
Excelsior!
18 - Dave Nalle
the Standard is basically the Rule of fucking Law and to uphold the Oath of Office the miserable bastards have taken
I think you have a naive belief in the absolute nature of law in America. Law is constantly rewritten and reinterpreted, and some actions which appear to you to violate the law may fit with the spirit of it or not violate it in a literal way despite your beliefs. You're very intolerant on this issue and don't admit to any possibility of any perspective but one of absolute rigidity when in fact the situation is a lot grayer than your black and white perception.
we differ on this Administration's violation of FISA, as an example...
Hell, I question whether FISA is even constitutional.
i want the Law to be upheld, you consider it a minor thing to so blatantly violate the 4th and possibly 5th amendments
I do believe in those amendments, but I think whether they were violated is entirely a matter of opinion. The law's just not clear enough and for that matter, I don't see FISA as very good law in the first place. I adhere to higher principles which include the belief that you can't really violate a badly made law. Such laws need to be rewritten when they don't work, and FISA is a perfect example.
i do think you have a decent Mind, and a firm Understanding of the Principles involved...yet, for partisan purposes...you bash one side and act the apologist for another
and tho i belong to neither side nor gang...the laissez faire attitude of folks such as yourself makes the vile corruption of our elected Representatives, if not possible, at least more rampant
And I think corruption is the basic coin of the system and has to be acknowledged and accepted up to the point where it leads to oppression. I think that's just realistic.
but i'll not relent a single iota, my own Ethics will not allow such
Then get elected and head off for Washington. The Maine voters are quirky and they might put you in office. Hell, if you run I'll legally change my residence to Maine, pay the ridiculous income tax for a year, and vote for you. I'm all for uncorrupt politicians, but I also understand that most of our politicians are just human and doing the best they can.
Dave
19 - JP
If you've ever bought a gun - and most Americans and therefore most independent voters have - you know that the registration process involves some very intrusive and questionable paperwork.
I'd like to think that's balanced by the "do I really want felons running around with guns" angle--on this and the death penalty issue, your perspective is a highly self-interest oriented one. That reasoning (I'm not bad, so I don't care--let me have my gun) is why the NRA is sometimes guilty of stepping way over the line, IMO.
I may have erred slighty in the direction of making issues more clearcut and absolute than they always are, but that's the nature of making a point.
That's fair.
I do agree with you completely about the Radio Shack example of customer service. And for your amusement, your Elephonkey reminds me of a centrist site I've been reading, DonkElephant.
20 - Dave Nalle
JP, the realistic depiction of the Donkey/Elephant hybrid is somewhat horrific and may trouble my dreams.
I'd like to think that's balanced by the "do I really want felons running around with guns" angle
The reality is that felons can get guns no matter what we do to check peoples backgrounds. Felons aren't buying their guns at the local gun show or in the local gun shop.
--on this and the death penalty issue, your perspective is a highly self-interest oriented one.
IMO self-interest is what it's all about for most voters, and one of the few motives which you can trust and count on reliably.
That reasoning (I'm not bad, so I don't care--let me have my gun) is why the NRA is sometimes guilty of stepping way over the line, IMO.
When the alternative is don't let people have their guns I'm willing to put up with the excesses of the NRA.
Dave
21 - gonzo marx
false postulate...
the alternative is to require folks to register their guns in the same manner that they register their cars...
and then enforce the fucking Law...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
22 - Jet in Columbus
While you have a good point there Gonzo, it's a lot easier to hid an registered gun than it is a car...
23 - Andy Marsh
and gonzo - what happens when the criminals that are commiting gun crimes don't register their guns? I mean, come on, the law says everyone is required to have insurance on a vehicle, but for some reason, I still have to carry uninsured motorists insurance...you mean someone's not obeying the law??? There is that old saying...when they outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns...
I understand this registration thing...and I don't really think it's all that bad a thing...but if anyone really believes that the people that are commiting gun crimes are gonna register their weapons...wanna buy a bridge???
Does the constitution say that I have the right to bear arms...or does it say I have the right to bear arms with the proper permit?
And don't get your panties in a wad here...I'm asking questions...
24 - Jet in Columbus
Um, Andy... how do you know that Mr. Marx wears panties? No don't answer that
25 - gonzo marx
well now Andy....ya know i have stated tat i have NO problems with folks having guns...
it is my thought that registering them , like we do our dogs or cars...is a good thing
this way, if a cop shakes down a bad guy and finds an unregistered gun....he gets popped for the mandatory minimum..
if nothing else
it also adds a fixxed charge to any crime committed with a firearm
all in all, a win-win
and i don't see ANY reason to have any objection to registering a firearm purchased legally....none what so ever
please to point out in the Constitution the discrepency with registering your firearm and the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment...
nobody has ever answered that one for me, including NRA reps
Excelsior!