What is it with the word Independent? According to the mainstream "press"tidigitators for the last few decades, politicians have had to court the independent voter. But why? In the past, self-identified independents made up a very small portion of the overall electorate. However, the news today trumpets the growing independent minority as if it represents the apex of political intellectual acuity; nevermind that most who identify as independent are sorely lacking understanding of the political system. It is the contention of the mass media that the growth in the number of self-identifying independents is a result of discontent with the Democratic party as Republicans are depicted as solidly loyal to their party of preference. But is this true?
Firstly, any pollster can tell you that when a third, seemingly innocuous, choice is added to a poll question, a large number of people will pick it. For instance, if presented with a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 and 10 represent extremes, the average American will usually opt for somewhere in the middle if not 5 outright. This in no way means that they have a better understanding of the topic and it continues to propogate the myth that Americans are "centrists." If most polls used to offer a choice between Republican and Democrat or a choice between the two major parties and a number of other affililiations, but now trend towards Republican, Democrat, and Independent, it is not unlikely that those with no opinion or an ill-informed opinion will gravitate to Independent. That is, independent has become the chic choice for those who don't know.
Secondly, the media continues to deny that most polls have shown repeatedly, and for quite some time, that the majority of the American electorate is left of center on most issues, even the contentious issues like abortion. Self-identifying independents are no exception. Most would choose a perceived liberal over a perceived conservative most of the time. So while it may be true that some people have begun identifying themselves as independents because they have become disillusioned with the Democrats, it is by no means a sign that the principles of the Democratic base have become out-of-touch with the American voter. The press only wants it to seem that way. That is why it persists in pushing the idea that anti-Iraq war voters are on the fringe when approximately 70% of the elctorate is against the Iraq occupation.
The current fascination with Ron Paul fits well into what the media is selling. Ron Paul is popular with independents because, simply put, he sounds like a Democrat, at least on issues like Iraq. A deeper look at the man will reveal his right-wing tendencies. Paul is simply functioning as the new maverick McCain since McCain has gone off the deep end. If the media actually covered his record in lieu of selling him as a Republican insurgent, the American public would not take a media-encouraged shine to him. However, the media has managed to effectivley give the words conservative and Republican a connotation of respectablility even in the face of continued Republican scandals and, arguably, the worst GOP administration in history.
Independents must understand that until there is a major overhaul of the electoral system, we have, for better or for worse, a two-party system. The only real change must be affected by altering a major party. That requires participation. Independents have effectively opted out of the process and expect to be wooed anyway.
6/18/2007
Restating the Names
It's time for an Aristotelean attempt at reordering the labels that the media has now used for years to distort the positions of the politicians they are supposed to be covering. Specifically, it's time to take a good look at the terms Conservative and Liberal.
Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).
However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.
The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.
The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.
So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.
The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?
What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.
Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).
However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.
The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.
The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.
So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.
The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?
What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
