One of my Ezine subscribers, Max Skidmore, sent me an excellent commentary on my last Ezine.

Max rightly points out Independents come from all kinds of poltical persuasions and are Independents for a large variety of reasons.

Here are Max's comments.

Hi Larry,

Interesting blog, as usual.

Here are some thoughts on independent voters. The tendency is to assume that they are a defined group, possibly between Republicans and Democrats, who will pick and choose issues from either party. Some, of course, are, but many are not. Libertarians see themselves this way: they say they choose the fiscal conservativism of the Republicans and the social liberalism of the Democrats to keep government out of everyone’s life. In practice, though, they tend to line up more with Republicans (although the arch conservative Bob Barr, the man who introduced an impeachment resolution against Clinton in the House long before anyone had heard of Monica Lewinsky), became fed up with Bush authoritarianism and pre-emptive war, and after his defeat for re-election threw his lot in with the ACLU!). Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Independents don’t fit easily into a specific category, because there are many, many, reasons behind their political choices. Here are just some possibilities: Some are disgusted with Democrats or Republicans because they are too liberal or too conservative. However, others reject them because they consider them wishy-washy—ie, the Republicans are insufficiently right-wing, the Democrats not far enough left. Others simply know little about politics, and thus don’t affiliate. In other words, they are outside the system, true, but not for ideological reasons.

The assumption too often is the same as that in support of a third party. That is, they are a group that would support everything I want, and oppose everything I oppose. Let’s assume that’s true—and of course, it assumes that all thoughtful people of good will naturally would agree with me—just how long would it be before an independent movement, or third party, if it ever came to power, simply assumed the mantle of either Republicans or Democrats?

For better or worse, the entire system is geared to respond to a two-party structure. In practice, a strong third party movement (or an organized independent movement) nearly always works to defeat the side closest to its own interests, ensuring victory for the ones they most oppose.

In 1992, Perot seems to have appealed most to disaffected Republicans, and helped ensure Clinton’s victory—the very thing that the disaffected Republicans wanted least. Recentlly in New York’s 20th congressional district (or was it the 23rd?), a strong right-wing challenge to the conservative Republican candidate brought victory to the Democrat in a district that had not gone Democratic for over a century. In New Mexico a few years ago, a strong Green challenge in a Democratic district helped ensure a congressional victory for a Republican, and we all are familiar with 2000, in which Ralph Nader’s showing in Florida made a Bush victory possible nationwide, and saddled the country with eight years of a president who ultimately even Nader conceded was worse than Gore would have been. Shortly after 2000, I attended a talk by Michael Moore, who had supported Nader, and even he said, "Ralph should have stayed away from Florida!"

The religious right some decades ago demonstrated enormous political skill. Their conservative activists noted that they got nowhere when they acted independently, when they supported whichever candidate seemed closest to their interests. Thus, they decided to concentrate all their activities in one of the existing parties. It could have been either one, but they chose the Republicans, and we all can see how effective they became. They didn’t completely take over the GOP, but they became so powerful that they controlled it to a considerable extent.

From a purely political point of view, Nader should have worked within the Democratic Party. He might have failed, or he might have succeeded. If he had failed, however, the consequences from his point of view would have been comparatively inconsequential. The independent path he chose, though, resulted in the worst possible outcome—from the standpoint of his values. He has never admitted this—and could never admit it. To do so would admit that he, single-handedly, energized those outside the system to engineer the election of the single administration most opposed to his own values. He couldn’t live with himself if he were to recognize what he did.

Just some thoughts. Things rarely are so simple as them seem.

Keep up the good work,

Max