Ramussen reported yesterday that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has declined. The poll received more publicity for finding greater drops among Republicans, but that should be no surprise. The Republicans have undermined the security of the country, abused power, and shown they are incapable of responding to emergencies, from 9/11 to Katrina, regardless of how much warning, and are on the wrong side of virtually every issue. With this record, the decline in those identifying themselves as Republicans is to be expected. Explaining why fewer identify themselves as Democrats is a far more interesting issue.
When the story broke yesterday that the number of independents has jumped to an all time high, even exceeding the number of Republicans, The Moderate Voice was wondering if this was a sign of victory. Chris Bower played down the results, noting that Democrats maintain a large margin over the Republicans, especially if the direction a voter leans is considered.
The question remains why, after abandoning the Republican Party, an increasing number of us remain independent rather than identifying as Democrats. Sure, I voted straight Democratic in 2004 and 2006, but that does not guarantee I’ll vote Democratic in the future. While the Republicans do not currently offer a viable option, the possibility remains that a sane group will retake control of the party. If not, development of a viable their party which can actually win will become inevitable.
Many Democrats fail to recognize the contribution of independents and moderate Republicans to their Congressional victories. Repulsion at the recent policies of the GOP does not mean support for all Democratic positions, especially if they try to look back towards the New Deal as opposed to the future.
In many cases, the problem is not with the policies of Democrats but how they describe them. Republicans have beaten Democrats in the rhetoric war. Contrast Ronald Reagan’s promise to get government off our backs with Hillary Clinton’s “we’re all in it together society.” For those in need of the government safety net, this may be attractive. For the rest of us, the old joke holds that among the scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
To a certain degree this comes down to rhetoric. Modern Republicans, rather than getting government off our back, support far greater government intrusion in our lives. They claim to be capitalists while supporting a system of government and corporate collusion which is as far from the free market as the positions of Karl Marx. Once the specifics of Clinton’s economic views are seen, they may or may not be cause of alarm.
Using such language also suggests that Hillary Clinton failed to learn an important lesson from the failure of her health care plan. HillaryCare failed not simply because of the Harry and Louise ads, but because the plan was distasteful to a majority of Americans. Most Americans will support a necessary social safety net, but don’t want a net so big as to strangle us all.
With the front runner for the Democratic nomination not looking very appealing, for many reasons beyond those alluded to above, it is necessary to look at the other choices. The promise everything to everybody and the heck with the cost economic policies of John Edwards hardly look like a viable option. Democrats need to move beyond the New Deal coalition and promote liberal ideals without alienating the affluent voters who might otherwise support them.
Very few Democrats really get this. John Kerry, with a long history of support for small business, got it, but by the time this message was filtered through his political handlers it became incomprehensible. Bill Richardson may get it, but he can’t get his message out. Barack Obama just might get it too. He has often made statements which show he looks beyond the Democratic orthodoxy, but it is difficult to evaluate him without a clearer idea of his policy goals. Obama would probably make a better President, but perhaps a poorer candidate, if he spent another term in the Senate before running.
A third party may or may not turn out to be the solution for independents. It will be far easier for a third party to become successful with the benefits of the internet for fund raising, national publicity, and even local organizing. The main obstacle might be that independence from the two main parties does not mean we all have the same views or goals. Just as neither of the two parties completely represents the views of many independents, there is no guarantee that any of the alternatives being discussed, including Michael Bloomberg and Unity 08, will do any better. Still, with fewer and fewer identifying themselves as Democrats, it is not safe the party to take the votes of independents for granted.
