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.

“Bill Maher is not a libertarian. He’s not even close. He’s a P.C. liberal.  The fact that he called his show Politically Incorrect is an absolute lie. If you watch Real Time and watch what he does to those that don’t tow the left-wing line, it’s a crime.  He’ll have a professor, Michael Eric Dyson on for hours to talk for hours on this post modern crap, and then he’ll go to Andrew Breitbart (creator of Breitbart.com and former editor The Drudge Report). Then when Andrew Breitbart starts talking, he’ll make a joke and everybody will laugh.  His trained seal audience of retarded nutbags will clap. And then the segment will end. So it looks like you saw two voices, but you really didn’t.  You heard this very long diatribe.”

“Libertarianism is a very cool thing to use as a disguise.  Bill Maher does not say he’s a liberal.  He says he’s a libertarian. I think Glen Beck is a libertarian, but he’s also got a very strong religious component, and it’s hard to put those two things together. I  think that “libertarian” provides cover for a lot of people.”

From Greg Gutfield  ”What You’re Left With Is Libertarianism” in the October 2009 Reason

“I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives.  You realized that there’s something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing. On the left, you have people who want to dictate your behavior under the guise of tolerance.  Unless you disagree with them. Then the tolerance goes out the window.  Which kind of negates the whole idea of tolerance. That’s the politically correct tolerance.  Then when you become a conservative, the other kind of moralizing comes from religion. ”

From Greg Gutfield  ”What You’re Left With Is Libertarianism” in the October 2009 Reason

HKO comments- so is Libertarianism a political movement without morals or one without ‘moralizing’?  Is there a difference?

F.A. Hayek pushed a decentralist, libertarian line instead (of conservatism), because he believed that none of us has a monopoly on truth or knowledge and that “to live or work successfully with others requires.. an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which.. others are allowed to produce different ends.”

Nick Gillespie in the October 2009 Reason “Conservatives with Pink Cheeks”