why i'm an independent

so what finally converted me from career lurker and commenter to actual blogger--even if only for one entry--was a post by scott over at bill in exile featuring atrios' blanket dismissal of political independents as not only being arrogant and stupid, but having "little understanding of how politics works."

i make it a point to read lots of stuff that conflicts with my particular world view and take almost none of it personally, but for some reason this facile characterization of independents pissed me off in a way that i haven't been pissed off in a while and i still can't figure out exactly why--maybe because i'm far from stupid, but more likely it's because the very fact that i have studied politics--and the pitfalls of concentrating unchecked power in the hands of any one group (or in this case, two)--is what made me an independent in the first place.

see, knowing what i know and seeing what i've seen, i'm all about the checks and the balances--and fuck the goddam parties.

when i was a kid i had to memorize this longfellow poem, and for some reason the old boy's metaphor for america--those first five lines--struck a chord with me. i like thinking of our country as this great ship of state making its way through perilous straits--veer too far to starboard and we'll break up on the rocks of police-state fascism; too far to port, we'll wash up on the sands of welfare-state socialism. but steer a rational middle course, and maybe we--and the world hanging breathless on our fate--will come through it all ok.

problem is, things have devolved to the point where there is no middle course for america anymore--now we've got two diametrically opposed crews yanking the helm wildly back and forth as they fight for control, to the point where it's pretty much inevitable we're gonna run aground; only questions in my mind are (a) on which shore we're gonna end up, and (b) how soon it'll happen.

so, given that context--and being handicapped as i am by my stupid, arrogant babe-in-the-woods independence--i find myself faced with the following killer dilemma come this november:

since, on the one hand, democrats will probably control not just one but both houses of congress for the foreseeable, how can i support a democrat for president, knowing as i do that after eight years of unchecked liberalism (especially with this choice of candidates) we'll end up with a bloated, initiative-killing, tax-sucking welfare/nanny state the likes of which will make johnson's great society look like rugged frontier individualism by comparison?

on the other hand--even given my conviction that maintaining tension between the executive and legislative branches is essential--how can i support a republican for president, knowing as i do the damage to the already-skewed judicial branch (and what's left of our civil liberties) that eight more years of conservative federal-level district, appellate and supreme court appointments would do?

so i'm torn.

now, i know--because i read their blogs--that there are lots of bright, articulate people out there who never lose a minute's sleep agonizing over shit like this, resting securely as they do in the knowledge that their party is the true champion of the american way--and i smile grimly to myself because the observable reality is so goddam different.

and i'm reminded that, long before eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, a much earlier president (the first one, actually) on his way out the door warned us about getting locked into a two-party system--and damned if he didn't turn out to be right.

because it's clear to me (based on all kinds of hard, objective evidence i'll be happy to spew out if anybody asks) that the two main political parties of this country no longer give a rat's ass about the little people who keep them in power; mainly because, thanks to the straight-party-ticket mentality of which atrios and scott are so seemingly fond, they no longer have to. because when it comes right down to it, what are the minorities/middle class/union members/small-business owners/gays/seniors/feminists/evangelicals gonna do when their beloved party betrays their perceived interests--vote for the other side?

the answer, of course, is hell no--and both the dems and the gop know it. they encourage polarization--hell, they feed it--and laugh all the way to the polls, knowing that as long as they give their constituents the illusion of choice among various candidates they'll have their respective sheep pretty much tagged and penned, leaving them free to concentrate on their real priorities: increasing their power, entrenching their self-serving ideology and bartering their votes for special-interest campaign money.

tell you the truth, i wish there were more real american independents--voters ready and willing to say "fuck you--i'll either stay at home come election day or vote for the other side just to spite you" when their party screws them (or, even better, my political wet dream: a viable socially-progressive, fiscally-responsible third party--not that that's ever gonna happen, of course).

so, scott and atrios, that's my take on why there are so many independents out there--it's because lots of us know that, as somebody once said, "determining whether the republicans or democrats are best suited to run america is pretty much like trying to decide whether the gambinos or corleones should run las vegas."

i only wish i'd said it first.

* * * * *

[and yeah, i've left iraq outta the above deliberations for the following two very simple reasons: (1) fuck iraq--if the republicans win and we stay we're fucked, and if the democrats win and we bail we're equally fucked, only in a different hole; and (2) being a new blogger and all, i can only handle one sophie's choice per post, sorry.]