SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Trouble With Independents

NOT EVEN PAST APRIL 26, 2011

The Trouble With Independents

No group in American politics gets more respect than independent voters. Pundits and reporters probe what these allegedly moderate citizens think about this issue and that candidate, major party strategists seek the golden mean of messaging that will attract independents to their camp and/or alienate them from the opposing one. Presidential nominees and aides struggle to come up with phrases and settings that will soothe or excite them. But what if millions of independents are really just a confused and clueless horde, whose interest in politics veers between the episodic and the non-existent?

That is certainly the impression one gets from dipping into the finer details of a mid-April survey of 1,000 likely, registered voters conducted by Democracy Corps, the outfit run by Stan Greenberg and James Carville. Beyond the usual questions about Obama’s job approval and that of House Republicans, this poll performed the valuable service of reading out each party’s talking points about the current budget debate and then asking respondents which ones they found convincing.

The results are mildly hilarious. By a margin of over 20 points, voters agree with these GOP lines: “Both Democrats and Republicans have run up deficits, but now they are out of control under President Obama and threatening our economy”; Paul Ryan’s plan “changes the reckless path of over-spending and borrowing”; and, “Over-regulation and high taxes punish companies for success.” At the same time, by slightly higher percentages, they also agree with the Democrats that Ryan’s budget would “eliminate guaranteed Medicare and Medicaid coverage”; “force seniors to negotiate with private insurance companies, which are free to raise rates and deny coverage”; and “decrease taxes for CEOs and big corporations, giving millionaires another huge tax break.”

Since avowed Republicans and Democrats line up consistently behind whichever arguments come from their side, it is the independents who are responsible for the contradictory results: Almost 50 percent agreed first with the GOP positions, and then, with those of the other party. As the pollsters observed, “[I]ndependents … move in response to the messages and attacks tested in this survey.”

To a sympathetic eye, this result might connote a pleasant openness to contrasting opinions, perhaps a desire to give each group of partisans the benefit of the doubt. But I think it demonstrates a basic thoughtlessness. At a time of economic peril, when one party wants to protect the essential structure of our limited welfare state and the other party seeks to destroy it, most independents, according to this poll, appear to be seduced by the last thing they have heard. Scariest of all, come 2012, they just might be the ones to decide the future course of the republic.

 

Back in the 1920s, Walter Lippmann and John Dewey engaged in a fertile discussion, part of which took place in the pages of The New Republic, about whether ordinary citizens could be trusted to make sound decisions about which policies to favor and which politicians could be trusted to carry them out. Lippmann thought the public was easily manipulated by clever propagandists and ideologues; a complex industrial society required public-spirited experts to run the show. Dewey acknowledged the need for expertise, but he also called for well-informed progressives to involve the citizenry in learning about and participating in the democratic process. The people, Dewey wrote in The Public and Its Problems (1927), in his earnestly awkward way, should “have the ability to judge of the bearing of the knowledge supplied by others upon common concerns.” To advocate this kind of public pedagogy was, at the time, more daring that it sounds today. In the early twentieth century, only a minority of Americans finished high school, and just a tiny elite went to college.

Nearly a century later, governance has only become more complex and consequential. Yet most American adults have attended at least a year or two of college, and the Internet offers limitless ways to inform oneself about government programs and the politicians who embrace or reject them. Of course, misinformation abounds as well, but probably no more than it did in the 1920s, when four million Americans joined the KKK and many others believed the Klan’s charge that Catholics and Jews formed an “alien bloc” that, if unchecked, would topple the democratic order. So, in theory, Dewey’s vision, in updated form, might be easier to realize in 2011. After all, loyal Democrats and Republicans still compose at least two-thirds of the electorate. Both groups tend to follow politics and engage in partisan debates, and they understand there are marked, even irreconcilable, differences between liberals and conservatives.

But then, there are independents, many of whom, according to the Democracy Corps poll on some of the most pressing matters facing the country, seem to be more myopic than moderate. Either they believe, in their ignorance, that slashing the budget and cutting taxes can be accomplished without touching any entitlement program they favor. Or they care little about politics and so are willing to consent to whatever messages get thrown their way, however contradictory they may be. As former Rep. Richard Gephardt once put it, only half-jokingly, “We have surveys that prove that a good portion of the American public neither consumes nor wishes to consume politics.”

Independents vote in lower numbers than do party loyalists, but, in close elections, they nearly always cast the deciding ballots. As in other recent polls, the one conducted by Democracy Corps shows President Obama in a neck-and-neck race with Mitt Romney; it finds the same result for a hypothetical contest between a generic Republican and a generic Democrat running for Congress. This means that, unless the political dynamics change fundamentally over the next 18 months, independents will be critical again in 2012.

Of course, the dynamics could change, giving one party or the other a landslide victory. But I wouldn’t count on it. Indeed, the Democracy Corps poll reveals that our next holders of state power might end up being chosen by a minority that seems to stands for very little—or, perhaps, for nothing at all.

Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent. His next book, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, will be published in August (Knopf).

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 32 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

32 comments

No “what if,” about it; they are an ignorant aggregate of non voting yahoos pretending to being “free agents" meainng they vote when the spirit (publicity) moves them. Their are a mass of independent minds. That’s why the right wing loves them.

- arnon

April 26, 2011 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No need to worry about the "independents" -- if it comes down to a super-close call in an election, like in closely contested states such as Ohio or Florida, the fair & balanced courts will determine our elected officials for us!

- Konstantin

April 26, 2011 at 2:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's a typo in the subtitle. You need to drop the first two words and the question mark.

- Usrname

April 26, 2011 at 6:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suspect that independent voters can't think conceptually; what they do think about, when responding to poll questions, is their own circumstances at the time of the question, so as their circumstances change, so do their answers. If grandma is sick, then don't take away her Medicare. If grandma is well, do something about all those freeloading geezers. It's also true that many Americans have very limited vocabularies, so verbal responses to verbal questions may be misleading. A more accurate guage of Americans would be non-verbal communication. I am fascinated by the behavior of people in public places, the airport, the shopping mall. The airport is best because their minds aren't occupied, at least not in any meaningful way. And, conveniently, many come to the airport dressed for the part, so it's not difficult to identify them. Smell fried dough, buy it and eat it. TV on, watch it. Child is restless, smack him. Roughly half are males, so one can assume that the subject of sex pervades their random thoughts. Asking these folks questions about public policy is absurd.

- rayward

April 26, 2011 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 out of 5 Independents surveyed think articles like these make liberals look like smug, self-congratulating, know-it-all ninnies.

- vox_mater

April 26, 2011 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are a couple of other things, though, too -- not just the Bradley Effect, where poll responders answer with what they think the efficient, no-nonsense, virtuously progressive person at the other end of the line would want them to answer, rather than what they actually believe, but the class component too, where a lot of people, especially from groups lower down the social and economic pecking order, tend to clam up when confronted by more educated folks trying to poke into their minds.

- ironyroad

April 26, 2011 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anyone ever have a serious doubt that this was the case? Half the people in the United States have an IQ less than 100, and even most people above that IQ level don’t read. Most people’s opinions are either set in cement (e.g, the Tea Partiers) or shift with the latest batch of lies and demagoguery (your typical independents). And these ignorant hordes determine the course of our republic. Thomas Jefferson had great faith in the common man. I wonder if he’d still feel the same way if he saw what our democracy has become.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

April 26, 2011 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule. I'm smart and well informed and consider myself an independent. Among the current company I would suppose that I'm smarter than the average dolt inasmuch that I voted for Obama and continue to support him. On the other hand there are those within his chosen party that I undeniably regard with disdain and do indeed refuse a collective identity affiliation. The same is true for the opposition party. Nobody is going to bully me into joining their political church. Kazin's convictions notwithstanding I'm very comfortable with my own convictions and shall continue accordingly despite having been insulted by these particular preachers.

- jacko

April 26, 2011 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is also possible that GOPers and DEMS are shameless excuses for American politicians and That "Independents" are not clueless at all. Confused perhaps... But anyone who is watching the GOPers might think they want to destroy the nation... And anyone who is watching The DEMS might think that they are no less inclined to do so. And I would add that many a pundit and academic has been no less confused - and possibly all the more clueless. It has taken some time for many of such folk to see that Obama is no progressive...

- hkaye

April 26, 2011 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Four out of five independents lost interest and stopped reading when the first two sentences failed to mention Kim Kardashian or the NFL Draft.

- DC Spence

April 26, 2011 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to debate politics regularly with a conservative co-worker with whom I disagreed on most things. We could however agree that we respected each other more than Independents who didn't care enough to pay attention and form a coherent set of beliefs.

- campbellsj

April 26, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is why we need the Fairness Doctrine back -- so that so-called "independents" who listen to Fox News only, can get BOTH sets of talking points -- the Propaganda from the right and the truth from the left. If Fox News is all they listen to (and poles show increasingly people who listen to Fox News listen ONLY to Fox News) then propaganda is what's informing them. There needs to be more balance.

- AllanL5

April 26, 2011 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And a second answer to your question -- If independents really ARE just a clueless horde, then that's why we get double-dip Recessions. We change course from stimulus to cutting deficits in a mere 4 months, despite the economic conditions.

- AllanL5

April 26, 2011 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look. In this age of media overload, 24/7 cable and presidential elections that run two years, how can any thinking person still be undecided on election day? The only thing that saves the rest of us is that most of these people don't vote. Instead of all these well-intentioned get-out-the-vote drives, I would have the fed pay for free drinks for all on election day with the proviso that you couldn't vote drunk. The money spent would be well worth it!

- NR132574

April 26, 2011 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"4 out of 5 Independents surveyed think" Voxmater...you are giving too much credit to 4 out of those 5 independents for being able to think. Ask what they believe and you get an entirely different picture of their world. That also isn't to say there aren't plenty of low-information voting dolts in the voting blocks that constitute the R's and D's of the world. We see that represented in our elected "leaders." It's like watching the football captain become head of student council because he believes that Pizza Friday should be on Thursday's school lunch menu. Not for any particular reason just because he feels it in his guts that it's the right thing to do. Does that make sense? Of course not, but plenty will vote for it.

- singlspeed

April 26, 2011 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't tell a lie. I am a stupid independent voter. What are you going to do about it? Order me to get smarter? Dorothy Parker said, “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.” I guess smart only appears in a TNR article, but dumb goes to the marrow.

- skahn

April 26, 2011 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I work with a lot of very smart, very successful people. I live around a lot of poorly educated, poorly informed people who barely make ends meet. Frankly, neither seem as a group very well informed about, or able to analyze, policies. I think the common citizen is just that - common and average, and a lousy judge of policy. Which, as AllanL5 points out, is why we need the fairness doctrine, and media in general that tells something approximately the truth about things. I'm glad I don't have another 50 years in this country - I don't think it's going to be a pretty place over the longer term.

- IowaBeauty

April 26, 2011 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, this is not a new phenomenon, so I probably shouldn't be so worried. In 1968, a lot of Democratic primary voters switched from Bobby Kennedy after his assassination to ... George Wallace, and then turned around and voted for Richard Nixon in the general election. Try to square that with anything remotely resembling reason.

- IowaBeauty

April 26, 2011 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fairness doctrine - amen.

- Sophia

April 26, 2011 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fairness doctrine - ahem.

- jacko

April 26, 2011 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is why I have long identified myself as a “not affiliated” voter, rather than as an “independent” voter. While it sounds like a distinction without a difference, in terms of the current political nomenclature it might signify something. I never have found much in common with most of the so-called “independents” with whom I’ve come in contact, because they generally fall into one of two groups: thinly disguised disaffected Democrats or Republicans who merely want to sound ‘above the fray’ in their public-policy conversations; or people who want to appear to be civically responsible voters but don’t want to do the heavy lifting of actually understanding relevant data, competing points of merit, and likely outcomes. It’s much easier (and now trendier) to join the herd of “independents”, which increasingly is becoming a catch-all category for people who seem mostly just tired.

- mam

April 26, 2011 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Would a fairness doctrine really accomplish much of anything in the modern media world? Broadcast doesn't have the influence or power that it used to so I'm not sure what good it would do. The Fairness Doctrine won't stop Andrew Breitbart (nor Arianna Huffington). I admit I'd enjoy seeing Fox and News Corp knee-capped but it just doesn't seem feasible.

- Pnaut

April 26, 2011 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most voters, not just independents, are a clueless horde. It takes a lot of time to be anywhere close to well-informed. When I'm on the subway, I often do a quick check to see how many people are reading anything, much less something resembling current events of import. The number is pathetically small, maybe two or three out of thirty. (And yes, I do look for people who might be listening to podcasts. The vast majority are just sitting or standing. Perhaps they are doing self-improvement through meditation. But they're not informing themselves as to what's going on in the world.) Most people have neither the time nor the interest to be cluefull. I suspect it has been thus since Adams and Jefferson (who waged campaigns just as nasty as those today, by the way).

- dsimon

April 26, 2011 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon says "When I'm on the subway, I often do a quick check to see how many people are reading anything, much less something resembling current events of import. The number is pathetically small, maybe two or three out of thirty. (And yes, I do look for people who might be listening to podcasts. The vast majority are just sitting or standing. Perhaps they are doing self-improvement through meditation. But they're not informing themselves as to what's going on in the world.)" I had a similar experience when riding the DC metro and while plenty of people appeared or gave the appearance of reading heavy tomes or policy papers, I suspected from the dejected and tired looks on their faces that it was more a ruse to avoid conversations. I mean who really reads "Developmental Convergences of Leveraging Strategic Assets in Operational Fields of Action" on their way home from work? I preferred pulling out a copy of Justine or Naked Lunch just to be a bit contrarian for those 30 minutes on the blue-line back to Old Town.

- singlspeed

April 26, 2011 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is why the Fairness Doctrine still matters - people are still most viscerally impacted by TV, they still listen to radio. Even if the 'net isn't affected the power of broadcast media is huge.

- Sophia

April 26, 2011 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes: we are a clueless horde, we are all vegetating, bewildered neanderthals drooling into our cheerios—all 42 million of us. It might strike you as surprising that there may be some independents who are highly informed and are independent on principle. I, for example, did exhaustive research on the candidates for the last election and voted accordingly. I am an independent. Therefore it is not a little annoying to be declared, ex cathedra, part of a group of mindless yahoos who are simply clueless. In fact, one of the main reasons why I and many I know are independent is precisely rhetoric such as that in this article. Here we have a leftist who, to use the vernacular, simply won't chill out. I and many fellow independents feel that the Left and Right in this country are like Blefescue and Lilliput—fighting wars over the right way to cut an egg. When you compare the divide between Left and Right here to that in other places, you will see my point. We all agree on the big picture; but the Left and Right scream and rave and foam at the mouth over relatively small details. And you remember who lives in the details, right? Many of us are Independents because we are disgusted at the indecency and rank puerility present everywhere among the party faithful on both sides of the aisle. The Right screams "Communists!" and the Left screams "Nazis!" To decent, thoughtful people, this behavior is reprehensible. The Left is desperate and enraged over the fact that political dogmatism is dying. Pragmatism and not being affiliated with party is in. This article is simply an expression of this frustration. Word to the Left: if you want to win us over, take a laxative and stop screaming.

- jdolson12

April 26, 2011 at 9:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, too bad you weren't one of those ONE THOUSAND people who agreed with everything as long as it was put the right way. In a country of 300 million, it never ceases to amaze me the conclusions that are thrown around based on 3.33e-4 % of the population. I know, statistics, sample size, all that jazz, but REALLY? A whole 1000 people and we conclude what the ENTIRE "independent" vote will do? A few Tea-Partiers lieing to you in that sample size can REALLY skew the results.

- AllanL5

April 26, 2011 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. Truth is difficult to discover. Even in the "hard sciences" of mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. When we get to politics, economics, ethics, psychology, medicine, every day something we were "sure of" yesterday gets turned on its head today. I was congratulating myself on taking fish oil (thus living 20 years longer than my dad who died of a heart attack); yesterday I read fish oil probably fertilizes prostate cancer. Talley Ho! 2. The benefits of representative government are not nearly so much "wisdom," of the masses as protection. If power is diffused, then it is harder to oppress and abuse. Plato's idea of a "philosopher king" might lead to better decision-making, but sooner rather than later, the king decides to butter his bread with your tallow and mate his son with your buxon daughter. 3. Many years ago, I read a science fiction story where the ruler had an explosive device implanted in the back of his skull. Each citizen had a "disapprove" of the ruler button; when enough were fed up, the ruler's head exploded. Talley Ho!

- skahn

April 26, 2011 at 11:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdoloson12: "Oh yes: we are a clueless horde, we are all vegetating, bewildered neanderthals drooling into our cheerios—all 42 million of us. "It might strike you as surprising that there may be some independents who are highly informed and are independent on principle." No one ever said there weren't some informed independents. The article says only that there are a lot of uninformed, confused independents. Those two claims are not inconsistent. And I think it applies to most Democrats and Republicans as well. Those of us reading here are likely political junkies; most people in the real world have neither the time nor the interest for such involvement. And there are understandable reasons for that, even if I wish it were otherwise.

- dsimon

April 27, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AllenL5: "I know, statistics, sample size, all that jazz, but REALLY? A whole 1000 people and we conclude what the ENTIRE 'independent' vote will do?" Yes, with certain caveats regarding confidence levels and margins of error. Once you get a sample size above 800 or so, you don't get much of a reduction in confidence levels and margins of error, and the extra expense usually isn't worth the effort. http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/best-estimates-guide-sample-size-and-margin-error: "The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The results of a survey of 300 people will likely be correct within 6 percentage points, while a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points, a lower margin of error. But that is where the dramatic differences end — when a sample is increased to 2,000 respondents, the margin of error drops only slightly, to 2 percentage points." You still have to have a well-designed survey, though. Garbage in/garbage out still applies.

- dsimon

April 27, 2011 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well put, dsimon. Allen's incredulity is unwarranted.

jdolson12, as one who prefers to decide for himself what to think on any given issue, not to mention why, I think you should be first with the laxative. The article was far from inclusive in its condemnation of independents. Actually, it echos several thoughts I've had over the last many election cycles; there definitely seems to be a large portion, possibly around half, of so-called "independents" which are simply low-information voters striving of their own accord to do the right thing but ultimately more or less stumbling around like dolts.

- GSpinks

April 27, 2011 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The lefties here can turn conceit into a pre-dump sashay and congratulate themselves for the choreography. If only those turds really understood ballet then they would naturally.......

- jacko

April 27, 2011 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close