Skip to content
Subscribe

Independent vs. Codependent

Published:

As public discontent deepens, more and more  Americans are declaring their independence from the Democratic and  Republican parties, but Democrats and Republicans continue to pretend  that Independents simply don't exist.

With  the big, one-day 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.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Independent vs. Codependent

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us