ubernoir wrote:
Stanley Fish takes apart a piece of non-sense so-called independents simply occupy the idealogical interzone between the parties, the fuzzy edge where the skimishing is and the general election battle takes place. The primary system is organising the army and deciding battle order before the fight, it not just about deciding who's in charge it's about designing, or at least building, the Spitfire to win the crucial battle. Independents are the World War 2 equivilant of Italy on one side and then the other.

I disagree with this perspective so completely that its hard to know where to start with it. Let me break this issue down into four parts:

1. There are reasons to select a leader that have nothing to do with politics. You are voting for people as well as their opinions. Some people are more qualified to handle top leadership positions than others, and those qualifications exist regardless of politics. While the author claims that voting for this reason is stupid, he doesn't do so convincingly. Incompetent people make incompetent appointments. These things matter in a way that is perhaps difficult for radical partisans, like the author, to understand. 99% of what needs to be done isn't a matter of partisan politics, its a matter of professionalism, and getting the right answers matters.

2. There are completely consistent political perspectives that do not fit neatly into one of the party frameworks. In fact the two parties in the United States are driven by radical participants in the primary process and are greatly split to the degree that neither faithfully represents what most Americans actually think. Furthermore, they themselves are not self consistent. The Republican party is an allegiance of economic libertarians who support federalism mostly as an avenue to limiting the overall power of governments, and social conservatives who support federalism mostly as an avenue to cut civil liberties protections without federal interference. Only the most small minded Republican cheerleaders fail to understand the difference between these two, mutually opposed positions, one of which seeks to minimize government power and the other which seeks to maximize it. In the Democratic party the philosophical lines are less stark, but here you have ACLU style civil liberties advocates who are aligned, mostly through mutual opposition to conservative designs on abortion clinics, with the women's movement, which is associated with efforts to censor video games, rock music, and other pop culture and advocates gun control. Its not really possible for a thinking person to agree with all of these positions simultaneously.

3. Open minded, well informed voters are the enemies of organized power and subtle, private interests. The party system uses ideology and peer pressure to turn the well informed voters into closed minded ones, ensuring that party managers (and their funding sources) maintain control of the debate. It is very much in the interest of the parties to develop droves of followers who'll participate in their efforts and consistently vote their ticket without critically considering the policies they are supporting. Everyone has met the Republican who thinks that liberals are stupid, communist, and supportive of the enemy in the war on terrorism. Everyone has met the Liberal who thinks that conservatives are evil, violent, pawns in a global effort to support the short term economic interests of a small group of powerful people. People who have these perspectives cannot think about policy, regardless of how well read or informed they are, because they aren't capable of looking at a question objectively. They have concluded, before ever hearing of an issue, that they'll support the position they're told to support by the leaders of their party, because they trust those leaders, and distrust their opposition, more than they trust their own ability to think about the issues. A vibrant democracy is not made of pseudo-intellectual indoctrinates!

4. If you refuse to sign up for a party, your interests are subject to pursuit. If you will only vote for a Republican, and you want something, the Democrats have no reason to offer it to you, because you'll never vote for them, and the Republicans need only pay enough lip service to you to keep you around. If, however, you are part of a substantial independent voting block, both parties may have an interest in competing for your attention, and that means you are more likely to get what you want. You'll see this happen in real time over the next few years as the Evangelical movement has figured out that it wasn't in their best interest to align so closely with the Republicans. They are slowly trying to make themselves up for grabs. You are starting to see both parties offering things to them, and in a competitive environment those offers are likely to be more substantial than the phony wedge issues Karl Rove used to get these people out to the polls.

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog