I sense that many independents that voted for Obama are having buyer’s remorse.

The danger of being independent is not having to define your position or governing philosophy beyond being ‘independent.’ For better or worse the parties do state a party platform and are in some limited sense held accountable to it.  As a candidate for that party you may reject part of the platform but you are associated with stated positions.  You may be a pro life Democrat or a pro choice Republican, but even that that says more about your political position than being ‘independent.’

The revolution within the Republican Party in the New York District 23 race where the Republican grass roots rejected the anointed party candidate, Dede Scozzafava, and supported Doug Hoffman shows the power of a grass roots movement.  But a grass roots movement has a similar problem of defining what it is that the party leadership has done to alienate them.

Do the independents or the populists support a more libertarian smaller government without the nationalization of major industries, 1990 page health care bills that no one has a chance to read, huge deficits, higher taxes, endless corruption, and endless government ‘programs’?   Or is it about the politics of religion and abortion?

Personally I believe it is the former. I believe that the leaders in DC are so insulated from the average voter and tax payer that they are clueless.  They surround themselves with the like minded and are only exposed to those views that support their own statist visions.  When they see a real populist uprising they assume they are wingnuts, dittoheads, manipulated from some sinister force, or otherwise not worthy of serious consideration.

The uprising may be a force without a voice, but to be effective it must define itself and stand for something.  Without standing for something we will fall for anything.

We have already done that.

print