'Independents' and Reembracing American Values

Robert Reich gleefully tell us what anyone but a die-hard Trump supporter already knows or admits: Trump's recent indictment will, ceteris paribus, consolidate his position within the Republican field for President, but he will probably lose the general election in 2024 if he is the GOP nominee.

Ho-hum.

What I did find interesting were his remarks about "the independents," among whom I count myself, and have since about 2015, when I moved to Maryland:

I'm talking about independents.

Those who describe themselves as independent compose over 40% of American voters -- a larger percentage than either self-described Republicans or Democrats.

This independent share of the voting population is on the rise, as young people decline to identify with either party.

You wouldn't know any of this from media coverage of politics, which focuses almost entirely on the deepening, bitter conflict between red and blue America. Hey, conflict sells.

Not that independents are moderates. They simply dislike angry partisanship.

Independents also oppose the Republican party's stances on abortion, transgender rights, gun controls and the climate.

In Wisconsin, where about the same number of voters have registered Democratic as have registered Republican, independents make all the difference. [bold added]

I was unaware that young voters were becoming increasingly independent: You'd think they were all "democratic socialists" if you took traditional leftist outlets seriously, or at least that America was on a fast track to become a one-party state controlled by the Democrats. (That said, I find little to be relieved about since I see both parties as being arrayed against freedom.)

Reich is fine to observe this, and is correct to note that people are put off by partisan rancor, although he would do well to consider why.

Instead, he wanders off into left field when he starts speculating on what "independents" oppose. Reading this is a little like hearing what Dennis Prager and his ilk pontificate about what atheists -- I am an atheist -- are supposed to think. (Feel free to read on, and compare notes with him.)

It is easy to see why: Independent in this context merely means "neither Democrat nor Republican;" and an atheist simply doesn't believe in god. Neither is a reliable guide for what an individual's positive beliefs are.

Consider Reich's short list of what independents supposedly dislike about "the Republican party's stances on abortion, transgender rights, gun controls and the climate" -- as if Republicans are wrong or completely wrong about all of these or the Democrats have all the right answers.

Bernie Sanders and Kyrsten Sinema may be independents, but they are hardly the only ones, and many independents would never vote for either.

Speaking for myself: I am pro-choice; tolerant of whatever any adult wants to do to his own body (but opposed to the various ways the left is trying to ram transexuality down everyone's throats -- not the same thing as fighting for their rights); opposed to gun control; and opposed to the "green" government campaign against fossil fuels.

Indeed, on abortion, I think the Democrats are doing almost as poor a job of defending that right as the Republicans do of fighting for economic freedom -- especially including that of energy production and use.

I am not the only independent, but I think that shows the futility of painting independents with a broad brush and the high potential to further alienate us by assuming one's own partisan positions are incontestable, or at least what any thoughtful person would believe.

But Reich is a partisan, and I am not particularly eager to help him, although he has helped me see that the way towards a freer America will depend on helping a significant number of voters become more aware of and willing to advance pro-freedom political positions even as independents mostly now act as a handbrake on the more obviously destructive proposals of each major party.

"Independents" are hardly all the same, but disenchantment with both parties sounds like a promising initial screen for where to focus one's efforts.

But that is a longer-term goal than winning the next election, and it involves changing the culture one mind at a time. And that goal depends heavily on the very thing that partisan rancor is a symptom of missing: an orientation towards rational values.

On that score, let me commend both fellow travelers and passers-by who are interested in a thoughtful discussion of America's current political developments to the very interesting discussion -- "Left and Right: Codependent Foes" -- embedded in this post, between two of my favorite Objectivist intellectuals, Harry Binswanger and Gregory Salmieri.

-- CAV