Salit:
Independents control America
Oct.
14, 2009, 11 a.m.
-
When we finally get far
enough down the road on health care reform, it will become clear that a
driving force in the intensity of the fight was a heart attack. Not the
medical kind. The political kind.
Independents swung decisively
to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. And it is this shift
by independents – who repositioned themselves from center-right to
center-left – that gave the Republican right the political equivalent of
cardiac arrest.
In 1992, 19 million
independents voted for Ross Perot. In 2008, 19 million independents
voted for Barack Obama. Over the span of 15 years, the largely white,
center-right independent movement re-aligned itself with Black America
and progressive-minded voters.
This did not happen out of
the blue. It did not happen by magic. It happened because the
progressive wing of the independent movement did the painstaking and
often controversial work of bringing the Perot movement and the Fulani
movement together at the grassroots. The Fulani movement refers to the
country’s leading African American independent, Dr. Lenora Fulani, who
exposed the black community to independent politics and introduced the
independent movement to an alliance with Black America.
No doubt the dramatics that
the right wing brought to the Town Hall meetings this summer were
intended for the television cameras. But the organizers, strategists and
radio personalities who orchestrated the theatrics had a particular
audience in mind: Independents. If they could tarnish Obama’s image with
indies, they could damage the black and independent alliance and
re-establish the Republican Party as an influential force amongst
independents. Some of that could be accomplished, they felt, by claiming
Obama’s health plan would drive up the national debt – a concern that
animated the early Perot movement. Some Republican strategists felt that
if they simply branded Obama a socialist, it would scare independents
away – not from the health care plan (everyone recognizes a plan of some
kind will get passed) but away from the center-left coalition that
elected him.
If indies are feeling
somewhat disillusioned with President Obama over the health care reform
fight, it has more to do with fears that he is being overly influenced
by the partisans in Congress. Since independents voted for him to be a
more independent president, it’s easy to see how some felt disappointed
by his handling of the Republican onslaught. Obama’s independent appeal
was based on his challenge to the prevailing culture of Clintonian
opportunism in the Democratic Party and partisanship inside the Beltway.
Put another way, the independent vote for Obama was an effort to define
a new kind of progressivism, one that was not synonymous with Democratic
Party controlled at the grassroots to hold our own.
Column continues on the right ->
|
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
Column continues below ↓
After years of hard work and
organizing, independents have become a sought-after partner in American
politics. They elected President Obama and New York City Mayor Mike
Bloomberg, arguably the country’s two most independent and pragmatically
progressive elected officials. No wonder the Republican Party right
wants a clawback.
Independents are vulnerable
to being peeled away by the Republican right. The
Pew Research
Center reports that were
the 2010 midterms to be held today, independents would lean towards
Republicans by a 43 to 38 percent margin. But, the evolution of a 21st
century independent movement is not that simple. First, the movement is
very fluid and very new. Historical movements develop through twists and
turns, not in a straight line. The far right has attempted to take over
the independent movement before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich crafted the
“Contract with
America” to woo Perotistas back into
the Republican tent. And in 2000, social conservative Pat Buchanan
hijacked the Reform Party presidential nomination, though he was roundly
repudiated by independents in the general election.
If Republicans are increasing
their influence among independents, it’s also because the Democratic
Party Left has not been a friend to the independent movement. Sure,
Democrats were happy that indies broke for Obama. But they were
disappointed that we didn’t become Democrats. They equate progressivism
with being in the Democratic Party. But they’re wrong.
Neither the Republican Party
nor the Democratic Party has been enthusiastic about the development of
indies as a third force. For different reasons, surely. But they share a
common goal: to maintain the primacy of two-value logic (where there is
only one or the other, never neither) and make sure independents are
passive companions. That’s one reason that the fight for open primaries
– which allow independents to cast ballots in every round of voting –
and the campaign to appoint independents to the Federal Election
Commission are so important. Those fights are about our right to
participate and our right to represent our interests in changing
the political culture.
The independent movement went
left in 2008, after many years of grassroots organizing to link it to
progressive leadership. Now the right wants to peel it back. Obama,
presumably, wants to hold on to the partnership, but must also privilege
his own party, which turns independents off and makes them more
susceptible to Republican attacks. Meanwhile, independents are working
hard to hold their own.
Jackie Salit is the president of IndependentVoting.org and the campaign
coordinator for Mike Bloomberg’s mayoral campaign on the
Independence Party line.
|