Indies and Centrists, Centrists and Indies
Brian Keegan has a brief post up over at Center Field about a recent Pew Center report. He notes how closely Indies and Centrists track on the issues. However, I note that the Pew graphs don't list Centrists. So, perhaps it is Centrists who model Indies rather than vice versa. In any case, it's a fascinating report.
One thing that jumps out at me as I look thru the graphs is the role of religion. Conventional wisdom is that we're seeing a surge in the role of religion due to the role that the Religious Right played in the recent election. Yet, comparing the 1999 survey results with the 2004 survey results shows a slight downtick in those reporting that religion is a very important part of their life, as well as a slightly larger uptick in those reporting that religion is not that important to them.
Another interesting one is the perception of how far we've come as a society in terms of racial equality. Contrary to the previous trend of public perceptions being that blacks continue to increasingly greater progress in society, in 2004 more people expressed skepticism about progress of blacks in America. I'm guessing that the 2000 Florida Presidential election debacle and this year's farce in Ohio contributed greatly to the reversed trend. That coupled with the seeming indifference of Congressional members of both parties to the plight of black voters. While I think a lot of white Democrats would blame Republicans... I'm guessing that an increasing number of blacks would blame both parties. Those who saw Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 will likely remember the scenes of one black Congressperson after another pleading for justice vis-a-vis the Florida vote while white members of both parties sat on their hands. This year Sen. Barbara Boxer broke ranks to join black members of Congress in disputing the Ohio vote which, like the one in Florida, featured charges of black voters being disenfranchised. Perhaps this foreshadows a move towards Indies among black voters.
Overall I'm struck by the same apparent Centrist trends among Indies in this Pew survey which Brian noted.
Your thoughts?
17 Comments:
Kevin, as evident from our previous exchanges, I'm not the one to define differences among independents and centrists. I'm still tempted to believe we're dealing with distinctions without a substantial difference. Perhaps the key issue is party identification, or lack thereof?
Tom, I go with the dictionary definition. Which draws a distinction between whether the word is capitalized or not. An "Independent" would be one who isn't a member of any political party, whereas an "independent" may have a great deal in common with an "Independent", politically, but be a member of an organized political party.
Going with that distinction I do think that "independent" and "centrist" could definitely be used interchangably for a great many folks. Although it seems to me that folks inhabiting the extreme ideological fringes of both major parties would have as legitimate a claim to "independent" as would centrist members.
With respect to the Pew Survey, the context there seems to me to define "Independent" as being at the very least not a Democratic or a Republican party member.
Now, some folks do go with a broader definition of "Independent" as anyone who is politically involved and who isn't a member of either of the big two political parties. So that would include Greens, Constutionalists, etcetera. From the context I can't dismiss the possibility that the Pew Survey is using this looser definition. But, I personally don't like that looser definition. Drawing a distinction based on the size or prominance of the political party one is affiliated with strikes me as little more than mental masturbation.
A couple points from the Pew polling that I noticed:
Corporations make too much profit - 53%I am constantly amazed when I read results like this. The American people don't seem to understand what capitalism is about or it does. For every very profitable company (still a bad thing? - the money usually gets put into business development of some sort, creating more jobs), how many new companies fail? There are two problems at work here: the media has shown itself to be extremely negligent in its understanding and explanation of business; the American public seems unwilling to take any interest in a critical topic in their lives.
Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost- 60%Most people, yes even the Republicans, care about the environment deeply, but this opinion is simply an old way of solving new problems, and indicates a broader POV that the gov't can cure what ails. New environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy understand that private money is the future of environmental protection...obviously a majority of Americans don't agree.
These aren't centrist/indie issues, they just stuck out to me.
Another interesting one - 42% of Democrats do not believe the homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society. It seems to me this is the Democratic Party's electoral conundrum of sorts. Gay rights activists have so much say within the party that they have effectively silenced their leaders in addressing these 42%. I won't speculate about exactly who this 42% is but it seems to me a large fraction of white social conservatives left the party a while ago.
Scott, your comments generated a couple of random synapse quivers.
Corporations: Lots of people, especially on the left, hate big corporations. At the same time, these corporations are responsible for creating or producing the houses they live in, the cars they drive, the TV programs and movies they watch, most of the food they eat, the medicines that save their lives, and on and on. And let's not forget, corporations create many of the jobs that permit many of the critics and their neighbors to live and support their families.
Government: Many people look to government to solve most problems. Spend government money here, spend it there, give it to so-and-so, financially support oddball lifestyles, etc. How easily we forget that government doesn't have any money. They take it all from us, and the more successful we are, the more they take. If you don't want to give them your money, they'll put you in jail. If you try to resist, they'll shoot you. The only way government is different from an armed robber is the hope that the money it takes will float back someday in cash or in kind, but a whole heck of a lot of it goes to causes and people that you wouldn't give it to if you had a choice.
Gay politics: Got to give it to them; a very tiny minority has pretty much seized one of our political parties and shut them down on certain policy issues. All that accomplishes is contributing to continued Democratic electoral loses, which hurts the gay minority in the process. I personally wish we could just move on from this; issues like gay marriage are yawners, from my point of view. Let them get married; at least half of them will regret it. (Why should they be any different from the rest of us?)
Sorry for using up so much of your space; once I got started, I couldn't stop!
I have also noticed since 1992 that more blacks have been registering as Independents. However, the black independent vote goes the Democratic party based on previous generations teaching that the "Democrats are for Black people." After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I made sure that I didn't vote for a Democrat or Republican for president.
Black voters want an alternative to the two party system, but hasn't found one that would be considered "safe." I tell them good luck since it's politics.
Tom, don't apologize for the space. We like good comments of all sizes.
I both agree and disagree with your three points to Scott.
Corporation: I sincerely don't believe it is anything more than a small fring on the Left who hate corporations. What gets lumped in with them, incorrectly IMHO, is the desire to not go back to the Robber Baron days.
Government: While I would readily agree that government is often very wasteful, it also serves a pragmatic free market principle. It's like insurance. If you shop for insurance as an individual you're not likely to get anywhere near as low of premiums as you would if you're part of a large group. So, the problem isn't that we as individuals are in an inherently better position to... purchase fighter jets or prescription drug plans for the elderly, for example. Rather it seems to me that the root problem is lack of accountability.
I once read a piece on accounting practices after the implosion of Enron. The author stated that the federal government simply isn't capable of fraud on such a grand scale because their technical accounting practices are far less efficient than what Enron or any other large corporation uses on a daily basis.
I would suggest that rather than throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater we would be better served forcing our government into fiscal responsibility.
BIV, I've read that there's been a general trend towards registering as Indies across all demagraphics over that same general time period. This to me speaks to a larger issue than just racial politics. I think a lot of people are frustrated with what the two-party system has given them over the last 20 years.
"In Praise of Robber Barons": http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/02/in_praise_of_ro.html
Not exactly what you think (lol) but it's a great read. Tosses out some vast misconceptions about business in the late 19th century. The blogger posted it only a few days ago, he's one of the favorites.
Yes, child labor and indentured servitude were perfectly legal. But, is that really where we want to go back to?
Here's my core beef: Why must we always be caught between one extreme that lauds capitalist greed and the other extreme which lauds collectivism? What is so wrong with striving for a balance between the two?
I'm not Gordon Gekko for chrissakes--it's you classifying each person as one of the two. I'm not an absolutist. Take a read of the article, it's largely about Vanderbilt and reduction in transportation prices.
The blog piece only focuses on one side. And it doesn't even do that properly. Rockefeller is cited. Yet I don't see any mention of him extorting subpar rail fees from the railroads serving him.
Unquestionably we as a nation benefitted from the industrial revolution. Just as unquestionably, there was a dark and ugly side to it. Many of the ensuing laws were a direct reaction to how many of the Idustrialists acquired their immense fortunes.
Interestingly, Bill Gates is cited down at the bottom of the blog post. Which is interesting because Gates is an example of someone who acquired fabulous wealth while still treating the lowliest employees equitably. The same simply can't be said for any of the earlier Robber Barons. Indeed, the author of the blog post seeks to avoid the entire issue by pointing out that by and large the Robber Barons didn't do anything that was illegal.
Child labor was perfectly legal. do we really want to go back to that? Which, if you haven't figured it out by now... means that I'd read it the first time.
My question stands.
As an aside of sorts here... More of an historical observation, really.
Isn't it interesting how the "progressive" reaction to the Robber Barons (which the author of that blog post clearly derided) is what ushered in the modern era of prosperity for the nation rather than for just a select few? And we didn't become a super power until we became a wealthy nation.
And yet we're still able to spawn the insanely wealthy, as the example of Bill Gates proves.
Just a little something to ponder...
The progressive reaction to the late 1800s was one of the most important, if not the most important, movement of the 20th century.
Agreed.
The most interesting part of it to me is how WWII vets were rewarded by the federal government upon the ending of the war. I mean in terms of the GI Bill, low interesting housing loans, etc. Our domestic economy really ramped up after that and arguably the infusion of redistributed tax dollars via the WWII vets played a crucial role in it. And really that's where we can trace the existance of a substantial middle class to, also.
It's very interesting time in our nation's history. One in which too few seem to explore, IMO.
If I can throw another couple of cents in here...I see corporations, government, private organizations, etc as "things" people create to better manage their existence and enrich their lives. They aren't capable of being evil or virtuous, like the people who run them. The problems of excessive power, corruption, and irrationality are problems created by people, and they can be fixed.
That's a really crucial distinction to draw, Tom. I completely concur with it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home