Independents are the anchor of the progressive movement -- dynamics, not data (part 2)

by: jeffroby

Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 16:20

In discussing the viability of independent politics, the supposedly crushing anti-independent argument is that the nature of the American political system means that the best an independent candidacy can accomplish is to throw the election to a Republican.  Our two-party system does not allow for three serious parties.  This is asserted with what I think is an unbearable smugness.

So in part 1 (http://www.openleft....), I make the counter-challenge that the notion that progressives can actually take over the Democratic Party (in a way that allows implementing progressive policy) is also highly dubious.  We may gain influence, but never control.  (And no, Domhoff doesn't make the case that progressives can win, only that they can play.)  I would even go so far as to argue that progressive Democrats are less than serious, based on the near-total absence of discussion of organizational forms and vehicles through which their takeover would be accomplished.  In other words, it may be that both courses for progressives are pipe dreams and the American people may simply be royally fucked.

In this installment, I'll argue it more from the progressive independent side of the fence.  Forgive my somewhat argumentative tone.  I am an at least somewhat sophisticated progressive, but I share the gut reactions of people less sophisticated, and I want to give them some voice.

more secular than the overall electorate.
In 2006 split 57% to 39% for Democrats.
3/4 of independents either dissatisfied or downright angry at Bush administration.
2/3 of independents said the war is not worth fighting, most hold view "strongly."
35% of independents agreed economy good or excellent.
55% viewed Democrats favorably, while 41% Republicans.
broadly favored Democrats on Iraq, healthcare, global warming, abortion, gay marriage, corruption in government, managing the federal government, and dealing with the deficit.
3/4 said issues, not party line, is a "major reason" they claim the label.
consistently less hopeful, more frustrated with the system than are Democrats or Republicans.

The article then arbitrarily divvies them up:

dislocated 16% (far more likely to say that the Democrats better represent their views on social issues, while a majority asserted that the government in Washington is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. They are also the least religious
disillusioned 18% (lean heavily Democratic, among most open to independent candidacy.
disguised partisans 24% (walk and talk like Democrats or Republicans [15 to 9] -- sometimes with more passion.)
deliberators 18% (middle-of-the-roaders)
disengaged 24% (non-voters)

Let's drop the deliberators and disengaged off our map.  That leaves 58% of independents.  Since the dislocated, disillusioned and disguised lean Democratic (but are not Democrats, I remind you), let's say that breaks 36% progressive, 22% not.  You can quarrel with that on your own dime.

36% of 40% = 14% of the electorate

Let's make up some numbers for Democrats.  35% of the electorate, 70% of Democrats progressive.

70% of 35% = 24% of the electorate

24 to 14 isn't that far apart.  And it adds up to 38.  If our appeal had to be either/or as some foolishly argue, then screw the independent progressives.  But for those of us who can walk and chew gum at the same time, that 14% is a pretty significant bloc just in sheer size, compared to Democratic progressives.  You think they're already in your pocket?  Look at the approval ratings for Congress.  You say we appeal to independents by taking positions they support.  Speaking as an independent, I say, how dare you brush me off with such condescending twaddle!  You don't know me!  You don't own me!

Did you note that, in the last Democratic debate, the candidates started listing independents among those they were appealing to.  Explicitly, if only nominally.  That's more mention than they get on OpenLeft, except for from the independents haunting OpenLeft.

Now some might say, "Your title says 'dynamics, not data,' so what's with all the numbers?  Numbers you're making up anyway?"  Good point.  Now for the dynamics.  This site has elaborated on how a Republican hard core has contrived to dominate American politics.  20%?  We all know how the Goldwater people, extremists out of the American mainstream, moved after their 1964 loss and organized off that defeat to achieve their current position.  So it's 38 (combined progressive) to 20 leaning fascist.

And now you say, wait a minute, you cheating bastard, this fascist 20% is hardcore and the 38% progressive is softer than a marshmallow in the Mojave!  They're organized!  And I bow my head, nod pathetically, and ... NOT walk away.  Yeah.  Why the hell aren't they organized?  Many of them are former Democrats.  How did you lose them?  Uh, Al Gore, triangulation, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, voting to authorize the Iraq war.  Voting for Bush's tax cuts.  Voting for the Patriot Act.  Voting for FISA.  Voting for Scalia, Alito, Mukasey (or allowing a minority Democratic bloc to do so).  It's like Philip Marlowe says of the killer Canino in the Big Sleep, who'd "beat my teeth out and then kick me in the stomach for mumbling."  Independents are independents primarily, thought not exclusively, due to the failure of Democrats and Republicans alike.  Progressive independents are such primarily due to the failure of the Democratic Party, and that includes its progressives.

In other words, if independents WERE organized, they would constitute a powerful progressive force.  The arguments against independent politics are at least in part based on the current political spectrum, on the current playing field.  I want to move the political spectrum.  I want to change the playing field.  If we can't do that, we are ...

To do that, we have to engage why an independent is an independent.  (Clue:  It isn't because they couldn't find the little box on their voter registration form.)  To state the obvious, while independents are all over the place on all sorts of issues, they reject the two parties.  They see them working as a system, articulated sometimes as "agents of late-stage imperialism conspiring to squeeze the life out of the working class," sometimes (and more often) as "all a bunch of crooks taking bribes and cutting deals."  The latter may be crude, but I think it's accurate.  More accurate than the former.  That thread can be organized around.

Progressives often slough it off by saying they want to organize independents via labor (the unions), women (NOW and NARAL), seniors (AARP), Blacks (NAACP), etc.  But these organizations, whatever heroic histories may have been, are focused on getting the best deal they can within the current system.  They are in fact hostile to anything that would change it.  Look at whom they endorse, not their programmatics.  Independent means independent of their traditional "representatives" as well.  It's a big job.

But I argue that independents are the anchor of the progressive movement (even now) because they have this core belief about the system that is not to be shaken.  Is alienation from the system the same as a desire to change that system?  No.  Idealizing independents as pure-of-heart proletarian warriors is probably a bad idea.  But they are less vulnerable to the slippery slope that pure-of-heat progressive Democrats have gone down for decades and decades -- joining the Democratic Party with lofty ideals and coming to terms with the art of the possible ending up like the hacks they set out to overthrow.  Purity of heart doesn't cut it.  Give me a plan.  Not just ways to make progress, but at least some outline for what an endgame would look like.  Give independents that and you can bring them along.

In the meantime, I remain skeptical.  I think independents have to be organized as independents.  They will support you, but they are not you.  You don't know me.  You don't own me.

(next installment:  the state of independent organization)