Making Sense of Independent Voters and Their Mood Swings.
There’s an old saying among Floridians that you might’ve heard of. If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. Whoever coined that saying must’ve been an independent voter. Only an independent could be perceptive enough to know how fickle the weather can be, not to mention his own voting record. While reading David Brooks’ op-ed piece in The New York Times, “What Independents Want,” I was struck by the above saying and found it curious that someone with as much gravitās into Washington politics as Brooks can be so easily fooled into reaching the conclusions he did regarding last week’s gubernatorial races. For a self-described moderate, Brooks shows an amazing lack of insight into how moderates and independents actually think. Let’s look at the piece shall we.
While Brooks correctly points out that independent voters represent “the largest group in the electorate” and lack “the think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories,” he couldn't have been more wrong about what actually happened election night and why.
As usual Brooks is thorough in presenting a narrative about the current volatility of independent voters. That he is astute enough to refer to them as “herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery” – one of his better metaphors I might add - underscores what everyone who has ever read him already knows: that he is nothing if eloquent. But then Brooks proceeds to make the same mistakes virtually every pundit on election night made; he draws the wrong conclusions from his own narrative.
The returns on election night ’09 do not portend any trend worth noting, much less a swing to the right by independents. Brooks writes,
“According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.”
Amazing how Brooks uses the image of a patient and a doctor to describe the current trend, yet fails to see the correlation and relevance that such imagery represents in the political landscape. The point is nobody stays ill forever. Today’s quack is tomorrow’s healer. Should the economy recover sufficiently by next year, I wonder what the Gallup polls will reveal about the level of government regulation. Deficit spending only means something to a voter when they’re out of work or hurting financially. Otherwise, it’s about as useful as a Glenn Beck monologue.
If we have learned anything about American voters – particularly moderate or independent voters - is that they value results over principles. Two plus two equals four always and everywhere. How one gets there is irrelevant. Brooks should know this; he has been writing about it for years. As I said in an earlier blog the results in last weeks elections represent one thing and one thing only: the American electorate is pissed off and is taking it out on whoever is in charge. Partisan hacks who talk a good talk, but who do not have any answers are out. More people may watch Fox News than any other cable news outlet, but so far it hasn’t translated into anything more significant than ratings boosts. One look at New York’s 23rd is all you need to know about how much ideology meant to a district that hadn’t voted Democrat in over a hundred years. Please!
Both political parties need to get their proverbial heads out of their butts and start offering solutions that work. Today it is Democrats who appear to be taking it on the chin; tomorrow it will be Republicans. Anyone in power who is perceived as not getting the job done will most likely be getting his or her pink slips over the next twelve months. This constant see-saw battle between the parties is nothing new, namely because it was never about ideology in the first place. It's the same thing that drives a Monday-morning quarterback and trying to figure it out or make any conclusions beyond tomorrow's sports scores is futile. The reason they're called independents is because they're independent. If they'd wanted an identity they've would've joined a major political party. Labeling them as shifting to the right, as Brooks did, ignores a basic tenant in American politics.
There’s an old saying among Floridians that you might’ve heard of. If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. Whoever coined that saying must’ve been an independent voter. Only an independent could be perceptive enough to know how fickle the weather can be, not to mention his own voting record. While reading David Brooks’ op-ed piece in The New York Times, “What Independents Want,” I was struck by the above saying and found it curious that someone with as much gravitās into Washington politics as Brooks can be so easily fooled into reaching the conclusions he did regarding last week’s gubernatorial races. For a self-described moderate, Brooks shows an amazing lack of insight into how moderates and independents actually think. Let’s look at the piece shall we.
While Brooks correctly points out that independent voters represent “the largest group in the electorate” and lack “the think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories,” he couldn't have been more wrong about what actually happened election night and why.
As usual Brooks is thorough in presenting a narrative about the current volatility of independent voters. That he is astute enough to refer to them as “herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery” – one of his better metaphors I might add - underscores what everyone who has ever read him already knows: that he is nothing if eloquent. But then Brooks proceeds to make the same mistakes virtually every pundit on election night made; he draws the wrong conclusions from his own narrative.
The returns on election night ’09 do not portend any trend worth noting, much less a swing to the right by independents. Brooks writes,
“According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.”
Amazing how Brooks uses the image of a patient and a doctor to describe the current trend, yet fails to see the correlation and relevance that such imagery represents in the political landscape. The point is nobody stays ill forever. Today’s quack is tomorrow’s healer. Should the economy recover sufficiently by next year, I wonder what the Gallup polls will reveal about the level of government regulation. Deficit spending only means something to a voter when they’re out of work or hurting financially. Otherwise, it’s about as useful as a Glenn Beck monologue.
If we have learned anything about American voters – particularly moderate or independent voters - is that they value results over principles. Two plus two equals four always and everywhere. How one gets there is irrelevant. Brooks should know this; he has been writing about it for years. As I said in an earlier blog the results in last weeks elections represent one thing and one thing only: the American electorate is pissed off and is taking it out on whoever is in charge. Partisan hacks who talk a good talk, but who do not have any answers are out. More people may watch Fox News than any other cable news outlet, but so far it hasn’t translated into anything more significant than ratings boosts. One look at New York’s 23rd is all you need to know about how much ideology meant to a district that hadn’t voted Democrat in over a hundred years. Please!
Both political parties need to get their proverbial heads out of their butts and start offering solutions that work. Today it is Democrats who appear to be taking it on the chin; tomorrow it will be Republicans. Anyone in power who is perceived as not getting the job done will most likely be getting his or her pink slips over the next twelve months. This constant see-saw battle between the parties is nothing new, namely because it was never about ideology in the first place. It's the same thing that drives a Monday-morning quarterback and trying to figure it out or make any conclusions beyond tomorrow's sports scores is futile. The reason they're called independents is because they're independent. If they'd wanted an identity they've would've joined a major political party. Labeling them as shifting to the right, as Brooks did, ignores a basic tenant in American politics.
Just as no able-bodied seaman worth his weight in salt would ever rely on fair weather to get home safely, no political pundit should attempt to take the temperature of an entire electorate based solely on a few small elections. Counting on the weather is a fool’s errand, and has lead many a ship to a watery grave. It has also left more than just a few otherwise astute political columnists a bit red-faced.
4 comments:
Dave is right. You are an excellent writer.
For a second there, you had me worried.
Next time please say, "You are a great writer, just like Dave said."
Thanks
Well, no one can be wrong about everything. I knew if we just kept trying, Dave would become one of us. What do you think, Comrade Dave Davidovich?
ugg boots
ugg boots on sale
ugg australia
australia ugg boots
ugg outlet
uggs on sale
uggs sale
sale ugg
Post a Comment