Are You Independent or Are You Codependent?

From yesterday's column at CAIVN:

With the big stock market drop and credit rating downgrade that immediately followed the debt ceiling debacle, public discontent with elected representatives in Washington is, once again, at an all-time high.  In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken last week, a full 82% of respondents stated that they disapprove of the way the Congress is handling its job, “the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977,” reported the Gray Lady.

It is surely no coincidence that record high numbers of Americans also refuse to associate themselves with the Democrats or Republicans.  A full 39% identified themselves to the pollster as Independents, compared with just 32% who said they are Democrats and 24% who admitted to being Republicans.  Since 1992, there was only one other poll in this series which found such high levels of Independent identification, and that was in late July 2009.

Writing in The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein argues that “astronomical levels of discontent with President Obama, Congress, and the Washington system itself” among Independent voters is building into a “towering wave of alienation” that promises yet another volatile political backlash in the voting booth next year.

“With each party hemorrhaging public support amid political polarization and economic stagnation, the implications for 2012 are complex and unpredictable,” he writes.

Brownstein sees three possibilities in his crystal ball: the rise of an Independent third party movement, an anti-incumbent backlash against the sitting representatives of both major parties, and continued de-alignment of the voting public from the major parties rather than realignment with either of them.
On the other hand, many supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties are more comfortable explaining away the public’s deep discontent and growing dissatisfaction with the two-party state, choosing to ignore it rather than address or confront it.

In Commentary Magazine, Seth Mandel advises Republicans that in 2012 they should not reach out to Independents.  “There is no “reaching out” to Democrats and independents (or Republicans for that matter), at least in the classic sense; there is only offering solutions. This is mainly because independents don’t really exist,” he writes, echoing the assertions of observers who are ideologically and institutionally invested in the maintenance of the two-party state.

At The New Republic, on the other side of the duopoly divide, Ruy Teixeira makes the very same point, on the basis of the very same article, but from a Democratic perspective.  He argues that President Obama should not reach out to Independents because Independents effectively do not exist.

“To understand how very unlikely it is that Obama’s long sought-after deal is going to magically turn around his numbers, we must visit one of the most robust but amazingly underappreciated findings in American political science: independents are not independent,” writes Teixeira.

Here we see a rare point of overt agreement between the partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties:  Independents should be ignored in favor of courting and consolidating the dwindling number of Democratic and Republican party adherents across the country.

This situation makes one thing crystal clear.  So long as Independents continue voting for, or otherwise supporting, Democrats and Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they will continue to lack adequate representation in government. So long as Independents allow themselves to be held politically hostage by the ideologues of the two-party state and the entrenched interests that maintain both the Democratic and Republican parties, they are not Independent; instead, they are codependent.

Kucinich Questions the Legitimacy of the Two-Party System

Democrat-Republican party government represents a grave threat to the people and Constitution of the United States.  If you support Democrats or Republicans, you are the problem.  Dennis Kucinich reflects on the debt negotiations between the White House and Congress:

There is a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as Americans' eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, willingness to make the most vulnerable Americans pay dearly for debts they did not create.  These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way. And they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system. 

Of course, the two-party system lost any legitimacy it might once have had some time ago.  The fact that individuals such as Kucinich, who recognize this simple fact at least to some extent, continue to affiliate and identify with the major parties is a direct challenge to their legitimacy as critics of the two-party state and advocates for the American people. The quote above is transcribed from the video below:

The Rapture: Zombie Apocalypse in Times Square?

There was a strange atmosphere in New York City yesterday, fostered in no small part by the prediction that the end of the world was set to begin.  DJs hosted end of the world dance parties.  Bars offered judgment day drink specials: "Last call?!"  Christian choirs assembled for impromptu performances in subway stations.  And zombies roamed Times Square:




Shortly after these zombies staggered by at 6pm, a large gaggle of locals, tourists and reporters swarmed around Robert Fitzpatrick, the Staten Island man who said he had "independently confirmed" the end times prophecy of Harold Camping, and had spent his life savings to spread the word to all those who had ears to hear and eyes to see.

Fitzpatrick expressed surprise and confusion that the world had no ceased to exist, and answered questions from anyone who was willing to ask.  There was no lack of hecklers in the crowd.  One sarcastically demanded to know: "Why are we still here?"  Another pointed out the inaccuracy of the prediction: "Your calculations are all wrong man!"  And yet another lamented that we all have to go to work on Monday now, to boos and hisses from the crowd.  Here's a pic of Fitzpatrick (bottom right) surrounded by reporters and onlookers as the Times Square news ticker above asks whether this really is the end of the world:

On the Illegitimacy of the Two-Party State

In recent months, Rasmussen polling has devoted a number of surveys to gauging public opinion on the size and scope of government.  This is not surprising given the outfit's known bias in favor of the Republican Party, which many falsely believe stands for small or limited government.  However, the results of these polls do not indicate a disdain for "big government" and a desire for "small government," at least in the way those terms are rhetorically defined by the partisan dead-enders of the GOP.  Rather, they force us to question the very legitimacy of the reigning Democrat-Republican two-party state.  Some recent findings:

• Only 39% of American voters believe the federal government operates within the bounds of the Constitution.  44% state that the federal government is unconstitutionally operating outside of those limits.

• Only 23% of American voters believe the federal government operates with the consent of the governed. 

• 48% see the federal government as a threat to individual rights, a finding corroborated by an earlier poll commissioned by CNN, which found that 56% believe the federal government poses a threat to individual rights. 

The latter finding is perhaps the most ironic, since a majority of Americans consistently tell pollsters that they are willing to trade away their rights and liberties for the promise of security.  However, perhaps they might reconsider as it becomes clearer that the state is willing to take them at their word, but only provide security theater in return.

The Return of the Whig: Centralization and the Crisis of Democracy

Following a work-related blogging hiatus, Septimus is back online at The Whig, and in force. Catching up on news from recent weeks, he reflects on the Pew Research survey which found record levels of public distrust and discontent with Democratic-Republican Party government. Arguing that the public mood stems from "a dissatisfaction with the two political parties, and the concentration of power in Washington," Septimus focuses in on the latter, writing:

Power is being taken away from the local politicians that you can meet and know. When the national government is deciding where to build a local road, what the local speed limit is, what the local drinking age is, what the local building code is, whether you can resell children's toys at a garage sale, what the policies of your local elementary school will be, what local business gets a tax break, who your local bank will lend money to, whether a local factory gets built, whether a local port can expand, where your local mass transit can buy their vehicles, where your health care comes from (and on and on and on...) what real authority does your local government still have, exactly? What are your chances of real participation? How can you hold your local politicos to account when in all probability, their hands are tied?

That is not to say that there is not a good reason for each federal regulation or power. Each one can undoubtedly be justified. But when combined, it is not only overwhelming, but also unresponsive and distant. As the Russians say, "Heaven is high above, and the Czar is far away." Now you may reply, "But at least we get to elect our Congress." But how much do we really?

Most of us live in districts so gerrymandered, that we don't really have a choice in November. Combine complex campaign finance laws and large political donors, with unresponsive and corrupt political machines in the Democrats and Republicans, and the real question is not the large number that are discontent, but that so many remain content.

This situation is only exacerbated by the fact that the only choice voters are afforded – or rather, the only choice they believe they are afforded –, is that between reproducing the problem, i.e. voting Republican against a Democrat or voting Democrat against a Republican, on the one hand, or not voting at all, on the other. We have already reached a point at which the great majority of eligible voters simply do not vote in the majority of elections. This is a crisis of democracy that undermines the promise of representative government. Needless to say, Democrats and Republicans are unresponsive to this crisis because it is, arguably, a primary condition of their continued lock on the levers of power. However, the fact remains that the American non-vote is a vote of no confidence in the two-party state and duopoly system of government.