Issues with independence

Stanley Fish has an interesting opinion today about why it's bad to be a political independent.  Speaking as an independent, I obviously don't think it's such a bad thing, but the article is relatively well written.  Essentially, the writer argues that humans are by nature factional, and that once you start trying to actually do anything rather than speak in meaningless generalities, you'll end up with disagreements about terms or priorities, and then you'll need to unite with like-minded people in order to accomplish something.  Further, an independent as President would face more politics in trying to get something done than a member of one of the two major parties, as that President wouldn't be able to count on a large bloc of automatic support.

These arguments are valid as far as they go.  What I feel the author has overlooked, though, is another reason why many people become independents: the fact that there is more than one political axis.  If you align things are a purely left-right axis, I come out pretty much dead center.  So does another of my college friends.  When you look at two axes, on the other hand, he and I come out as diameterically opposed, as he's essentially a populist and I'm essentially a libertarian.  We come out in the middle on a single axis because when looking at the broad scale, the number of issues on which we greatly favor the Democrats balance the number of issues on which we greatly favor the Republicans--it's just that, for the two of us, many of those positions are opposite to each others'. 

I'm sure there are some people who are independents because they gain satisfaction from not belonging to a major group, or who may feel superior to others for their lack of assumed allegiances.  The author does, however, completely ignore that some people might be independents because on the, say, 4 issues that matter the most to that person, two positions are taken by the Republicans and 2 are taken by the Democrats, and the person thus doesn't have greater loyalty to one side or the other on policy as a whole, but must make decisions more on the basis of the particular Republican or Democrat offered as a choice.  By not addressing that aspect, I see the argument as fatally flawed.  Thoughts?

Comments

[Joe Loy]

I think Stanley Fish's column is better than just "relatively well-written" and I don't know that I'd call his deliciously-Contrarian argument "fatally flawed" ~ but Yeah, you're right too, Dr. Mike.

It's hard to rebut Fish's point that to be anti-Factional is ultimately to be anti-Politics. What we need here is many more Recognized Factions,a mere two being woefully insufficient.

[Condor]

Once the baby-boomers lose power, I give the two-party system about 10 years survival time. Does anyone really think that our generation will stand for the same two political choices that our grandparents had? This ain't no coke and pepsi world no more.

[Mike]

I agree, that would be the fatal flaw. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to address it. Both his and your analysis are right on. Let me try to explain a bit. I find it hard to discuss political leanings without using at least a two axis system, probably because I'm a raging libertarian. However, most of my friends at school, before they really got to know me, thought I was apathetic about domestic politics. Not necessarily true, I just thought both major parties sucked. Needless to say, I shocked and scared the crap out of them when I went on a rant one day about the War on (some) Drugs. They figured since I wasn't actively political within one of the two major parties I couldn't be political. Not true, I just was outside the mainstream and interacted in a different medium (blogs, etc.)

I think your dad's analysis is accurate in that to be anti-factional is indeed to be anti-politics. (I'm sure we could figure a way to work some Arendt in here.) However, at the same time, it is possible to be factional and still refuse to be involved with the two major parties because you think they both suck (as I myself do).

[Mike]

I'd be willing to bet sooner than that, Condor. Especially if tax-hike Mike gets the GOP nomination. There's no way the GOP survives such a repudiation of its conservative/libertarian roots. Even without a Huckabee nomination, it's just delaying the inevitable. The GOP is at some point in the near future, going to have to resolve the deal with the devil made between the evangelical wing of the party and the freedom oriented wing of the party.

[Mike]

Actually, he's not my dad. Note the "By Mike Wiser" line; not everything on Brendan's site is written by Brendan. Hence the other confusion of your signing your comments as "Mike"--that's kind of been my role for the last, oh, 5 years. We're always glad to count another non-major-party political reader in the mix, though. ;)

[Brian Foster]

There's no way the GOP survives such a repudiation of its conservative/libertarian roots.

Yeah, like those northeastern liberal Rockefeller Republican roots.

I'm no blind GOP loyalist -- never have been -- but this notion that crops up occasionally that the modern GOP is somehow unique among political parties past and present in its precarious balancing of interests in an attempt to hold together an unstable coalition of interests in order to attain a governing majority is just silly.

And I can only assume that you think this, because otherwise you'd have coupled your comments about the GOP with similar observations about the long-since-exhausted New Deal coalition at the heart of the Democratic Party and how their centrist free-trade wing is wholly at odds with its more traditional protectionist / union / high-regulation constituencies.

Intraparty conflict is nothing new, nor is it a harbinger of imminent destruction for either party. (Or at least, it is not by itself such an harbinger.)

[Mike B.]

*#&@^!!!

Usually I'm better about noticing things like that. Dammit. In my defense though, I've been blogrolled, so I'm not a complete newcomer.

[Condor]

In order for a party to fracture, they have to believe in something in the first place. Fortunately for Democrats, they don't. Unfortunately for Republicans, they do.

[Mike B.]

I would agree that intraparty conflict is nothing new and that by itself it doesn't represent a harbinger of destruction. However, what I think makes the current GOP situation different is that in most of the past examples, the particular constituency that was rejected from the party was already on its way out of American politics anyway. In addition, to address the current Dem example, that isn't an existential butting of heads. While they disagree on trade, they agree on most other things. The evangelicals and the libertarian/freedom oriented people agree on pretty much nothing, especially with the rise of "compassionate conservatism."

That, I think, is why I think the current situation in the GOP is different from previous historical examples. A party that has two distinct, still relevant and even increasing in numbers factions that disagree strongly with almost every position of the other has almost no chance of surviving.

[Joe Loy]

As usual, Per-fesser Mike Wiser is entirely correct. I am Not his dad. :)

[Alasdair]

Wot ? You mean that Brendan and Mike (Wiser) aren't identical twins, switched at birth by an unfortunate chain of events only to find themselves friends decades later as they enter their procreational years ?

(And, no, I haven't been watching too many soaps ! (grin))

[Mike]

For us to be identical twins, wouldn't it help if, oh, we looked more alike than any two random light-skinned skinny guys of similar age? Just saying...

[Mike's brother Matt]

Hell Mike, you look more like Brendan than you look like me. So maybe fraternal twins...