You May Loathe Independents, But You Need Us

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-23-2007, 23:21

Originally Posted by Lemur

None taken! I must make a confession — I am contrarian by nature. Put me in a roomful of Earth First reps, and I'll inevitably start expounding on the joys of eating meat. Place me among pro-lifers and I begin to sound pro-choice. If I hang out with lefties, I sound like a righty. It's a problem with my temperament that I have no intention of fixing.

...so you're happiest in a room full of people, many of whom are starting to view you as a flaming rectal sphincter....

Have you been talking to someone about this, oh Lemury one?

Masochism is usually tied up with sex and sexuality, but for you it's clearly linked to smashing other people's archetypes. Maybe a few 50-minute hours of chatting with some friendly Jungian?

Enjoy your contrarianism you silly mugwump.

**Lemur** · 03-24-2007, 01:21

I don't really think my contrarianism calls for therapy, just a judicious application of baking soda and duck tape. Besides which, I'm quite moderate politically, which puts a natural brake on just how ornery I can get.

Perhaps a more accurate definition would be anti-extremist. Who knows. This is factors more about me than anyone in the Backroom ever cared to know, anyway.

**Xiahou** · 03-24-2007, 02:38

I've said it before, but I don't really think "independents" exist as a group. Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance.

More importantly though, an "independent" is just someone who doesn't fit neatly into either party- that doesn't mean that they're of the same mind about issues. Some could be in favor free markets and small government, while others could be ardent socialists- yet are moral consevatives.

**Lemur** · 03-24-2007, 03:28

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance.

I rest my case.

**Tribesman** · 03-24-2007, 09:31

I've said it before, but I don't really think "independents" exist as a group. Firstly, based on personal anecdotal evidence, many people call themselves independent because they're generally clueless on the relevant issues and say they're "independent" to cover their ignorance.

Would that be like people who call themselves Libertarians then

More importantly though, an "independent" is just someone who doesn't fit neatly into either party- that doesn't mean that they're of the same mind about issues. Some could be in favor free markets and small government, while others could be ardent socialists- yet are moral consevatives.

Wierd isn't it , does anyone actually fit neatly into either party ?
Do even the leaders of those parties fit ?

**Kralizec** · 03-24-2007, 14:00

I always had the impression that elected congressmen had a wide variety of opinions. Politicians formally toe the party line during nomination and election, but party discipline isn't very stric once you've taken seat.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-24-2007, 15:15

Originally Posted by Fenring

I always had the impression that elected congressmen had a wide variety of opinions. Politicians formally toe the party line during nomination and election, but party discipline isn't very stric once you've taken seat.

For both major parties this runs the gamut. A fair percentage really do hold pretty closely to the party line. There are others who differ on an issue by issue basis and quite a few who trend consistently away from the party line.

The minor parties are a bit more "true blue" for the most part, but they are often fixated on one or two issues which lends itself to that.