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.

Clifford Asness, Ph.D. writes in Stumbling on the Truth

The Republican Way Forward

Excerpt:

We let the easy pabulum of “compassionate conservatism” blind us to the fact that even though compassion is a virtue of the first order, along with benevolence, honesty, and others, these are private not public virtues, and importantly they are not virtues, if not voluntary. When the State claims to practice any of these virtues it is always being generous with someone else’s resources, and usually most so to the constituents of whoever is currently in charge, and almost always with eyes firmly on the political advantage it will bring. When one is benevolent privately, it’s usually, well, just to be benevolent. The two are not equal, they aren’t even both virtues. We forgot this for quite a while. We are not completely responsible for the Democrats’ large majority; there was bad luck as well. But, we must acknowledge that we greatly abetted the damage they have wrought to our liberty.

Read the whole posting; it is excellent

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.

David Broder writes a great piece in the New York Times, The Populist Addiction

excerpt:

It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.

Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.

Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.

So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.

The race in Massachusetts is stunning.  If Democrat Coakley is unable to beat Republican Brown in the bluest of blue states, then any Democrat is vulnerable. Just the fact that this race is close  should be a startling wakeup call to the Democratic party.

It appears that Brown is doing and saying all the right things and Coakley is doing just the opposite. If defeated the party will blame the candidate , and refuse to see it as a referendum on the current administration. Brown is running against Coakley on her statements, her policies, and her record. Brown is being attacked by invoking references to Bush and “tea baggers.”

Last Wednesday the odd at the trading site Intrade had the odds of a Coakley win at 85 to Brown 15, this morning it 53/47; a remarkable shift.

The Democrats have grossly misread their mandate and their hubris has dwarfed even that of the Bush administration. This mismanagement of their party’s victory should be laid squarely at the feet of their leaders, especially Pelosi and Reid. Their first constructive step to clawing their way back from the abyss should be to quickly replace both of them.  It is their hubris, partisanship and arrogance that are putting the nails in Kennedy’s coffin.