In the wake of the elections  of November 3, 2008 we noted the dramatic swing of the independent voter.  Who are these voters and why do they refuse to ally themselves with one of the two major parties?  I confess up front that this is my sense and perception and I do not propose to support this with any legitimate research.

The independent is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. This would make them libertarian but they are not dogmatically so.  They do realize that there is a place in foreign affairs for the military whereas the more dogmatic of the libertarian would categorically condemn foreign military adventures.

The social tolerance explains their willingness to support a black man with a distinctly ethnic name.  They are tolerant of ethnic diversity and I guess they are probably about evenly split on the subjects of gay marriage and abortion rights.

The independent is a realist.  He realizes that there is a continuum of socialistic government policy and individual liberty and is only likely to become mobilized when he sees a move to an extreme, which he probably now sees. When 48% of the population received more in benefits that they pay in taxes it is extreme in any reasonable view. The independent recognizes that there is evil in the world and that there is a time when violence must be employed.

The independent is civil.  The demonization of one party by the other, the name calling, and the negative campaigning alienates the independent. In a display of uncivil discourse they hear only the emotion and not the message.

The independent is rational.  He does not blindly follow a party line if it does not make sense. He is skeptical of radical change, but willing to question policies that no longer work. He understands that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not create wealth. In fact it is more likely to destroy it. He understands that the economic laws that govern his household are not dramatically different than the economic laws that govern our nation. Wealth must be earned, and debt must be repaid- one way or another.

The independent understands the role of government and its limits. He understands that life is imperfect, often unfair, and frequently uncertain.   He understands that government policies that seek to solve all our problems and counter the laws of nature often end in tyranny.

The independent is not necessarily the same as a populist.  The independent is more likely to compromise than the populist, less likely to have a single issue litmus test, and less likely to campaign actively, put a bumper sticker on their car or attend a ‘Tea Party.’

The independent is less tied to a principled philosophy and thus is more likely to be swayed by appearances and charisma. By not being attached to a party he is more likely to change if his candidate disappoints.  This explains the voter swing in VA and NJ.

The independent is more likely to change priorities in crisis.  After 9/11 they became hawks. After the financial meltdown they became economics Keynesians. After the bailouts and nationalizations they became fiscal conservatives.

The independents are honest and expect the representatives to be honest as well.  Transparency and bipartisan efforts were promised by this administration and they are not keeping their promise. They are intolerant of the corruption that is plaguing the party in power. They are even more intolerant that the party leaders tolerate the blatant corruption of a Charles Rangel or Chris Dodd.

The Republican populists that challenged the party leaders in NY district 23 are probably correct that the Republicans cannot win by being a lighter version of Democrats. But they also cannot win by ignoring the wishes and motivation of the independents. The alliance between the independents and populists in matters of sound economics and limited government will not necessarily include a mandate on social issues the independents oppose.

The radical policies of the current administration have energized the Republican base more than the attractiveness of any specific candidate to represent them.  Centrist Democrats in the White House or in Congress may have rendered a figure like Sarah Palin irrelevant.  Combined with the flexibility (or fickleness) of the independents the Right has quickly regained a footing many recently thought was unrecoverable.

A thorough review of what caused the financial crisis is needed and it should be  a fascinating subject. Unfortunately the hearings are weak and boring. In the Wall Street Journal’s “After the Crash, a Crashing Bore
The men behind the bailout take refuge in impenetrable jargon” Peggy Noonan writes of  her disappointment in the hearings.

In this excerpt she imagines what should be said but is not:

“Let’s be real. This is what happened the past 10 years. You, for political reasons, both Republicans and Democrats, finagled the mortgage system so that people who make, like, zero dollars a year were given mortgages for $600,000 houses. You got to run around and crow about how under your watch everyone became a homeowner. You shook down the taxpayer and hoped for the best.

“Democrats did it because they thought it would make everyone Democrats: ‘Look what I give you!’ Republicans did it because they thought it would make everyone Republicans: ‘I’m a homeowner, I’ve got a stake, don’t raise my property taxes, get off my lawn!’ And Wall Street? We went to town, baby. We bundled the mortgages and sold them to fools, or we held them, called them assets, and made believe everyone would pay their mortgage. As if we cared. We invented financial instruments so complicated no one, even the people who sold them, understood what they were.

“You’re finaglers and we’re finaglers. I play for dollars, you play for votes. In our own ways we’re all thieves. We would be called desperadoes if we weren’t so boring, so utterly banal in our soft-jawed, full-jowled selfishness. If there were any justice, we’d be forced to duel, with the peasants of America holding our cloaks. Only we’d both make sure we missed, wouldn’t we?”

I think she pretty much nailed it.

It is interesting to see the difficulty  the Democratic Party is having from the pro-life constituency within its ranks. I would have thought the Democrats would have been more solid as a pro-choice party.  It is interesting to see the struggle they have with a big tent.

The Republicans have been struggling with this for years and has struggled with disparate constituencies with strong litmus tests.  I believe that if the Republicans tried to undo Roe v Wade that they would find an even bigger and more vocal pro-choice constituency within their ranks.

The Democrats have had strong dissents within its ranks, but they are more likely than the Republicans to set aside their differences when the vote is at hand.

We will see if that holds true today with the House Health Care vote.

The threat of the Slaughter Rule to pass the Health Care legislation leaves us wondering if the cure to our health care problems is not worse than the disease.  It seems that there are only two reasons to resort to this tactic.  Either Pelosi does not have enough votes to pass the bill or she wants to provide cover for those who do not want to face the consequence of their vote back home.

In either case she stands ready to thwart the will of the voters.  After so much outright bribery and arm twisting this does not speak well for the bill. If she really thinks that everyone will like the bill afterwards then she is speaking very poorly of her party’s ability to communicate anything.  More likely she is simply arrogant in believing that the great unwashed do not really know what is good for them.

The Blue Dog Democrats have the most to lose from deem and pass (which is really a by-pass).  If voters cannot see how their Congressman voted and this obfuscation is intentionally constructed by the Democrats in power, then their only option is to vote out every Democrat regardless of their fiscal conservatism.  That will be the only way assert the will of the voter.

In an effort to give cover to their Congressmen, the party leadership may bury them.

It is stunning to see such a reversal in the Democrat’s fortune in the course of one year.  As the electorate sees the hopes and dreams degenerate into deficits and taxes, the administration will be inclined to spin the outcome into something other than the rejection that it is.

It is clear that the Democrats misread the mandate. But what should they have done?

Clearly the financial system needed reform. Obama could have started by addressing problems in the banking and financial system that would have clearly enjoyed bipartisan support, and would have been seen as a consensus builder.

The administration could have addressed unemployment with tax credits rather than reckless deficit spending.  But when the first program out of the box is to force unions down the throat of business, trample bankruptcy law in the case of GM, pass a hugely flawed Cap and Trade bill, and then force and even more flawed Health Care bill riddled with blatant bribes, then he has created such political uncertainty that economic remedies are effectively neutered.

But the voters’ rejection is as much about style as policy. The unmitigated partisanship, arrogance and deafness to public concerns has pissed off the electorate.

The president prefers making grand speeches to the dirty process of passing legislation. He may have promised change but what we got were old leftists exploiting a crisis to pass unpopular legislation.  His call for openness was greeted with contempt by his own party leaders.

If I were a Democrat I would place a large portion of the blame for this destructive hubris at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  The party picked two horribly divisive leaders. If the Democrats hope to save the ship they need to mutiny and get better captains.