Sunday, January 24, 2010

Why I Hate Independents

Yes, I know. I've heard it all. Martha Coakley didn't put in the effort. Martha Coakley assumed that she was the Senator elect and ran a Rose garden campaign. Martha Coakley was arrogant, condescending and aloof....And it's all true. But, it's time to explore another reason Coakley lost.
There are a growing number of people who define themselves, politically, as independents. They don't think of themselves as Democrats who want the option of voting for a Republican every once in awhile. They don't think of themselves as Republicans who are concerned that their party has gone too far to the right. They are people with no political philosophy whatsoever.
I'm not trying to make the point that all independents are political wild cards. I'm not even trying to make the point that the majority of independents are living in some political bell jar. What I am saying is that a sizable minority of independents are nothing more than reactive. They may respond positively to a personality, from time to time, but by and large they are a driven by a cynical nihilism that they mistake for some sort of intellectual profundity. They're the type that voted for Ralph Nadar because, in their minds, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Does any one still think that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq and given free reign to corporate America? I fear that these fools will do nothing more than destabilize the American government as they vote against everything, because they have no idea of what they want in life.
Just remember, Scott Brown will have to stand for reelection in a couple of years. Elizabeth Warren for U.S. Senate, and if she shows a talent for governance, Warren for President in 2016.

No comments: