Why I Now Consider Myself an Independent
I decided to discuss this issue on DU because of what I consider to be many unfair things being said about independents recently by some DU members – specifically that the Democratic Party should not consider them when making decisions or even allow them to vote in their primaries or caucuses. I assume I’m not out of line here, because the last I read, the DU rules say that they welcome independents who are not conservatives.
I’ve been a registered Democrat since I was old enough to vote (with a one year exception in 2000, when I changed my Party registration to Republican so that I could vote against George W. Bush in a Republican primary), which was about 46 years ago. Even now, that I no longer consider myself a Democrat, I still am registered as a Democrat. Why? So that I can vote in Democratic primaries. Some on DU would say that that is hypocritical. It is not. In my opinion, independents deserve to be represented in picking the Republican or Democratic nominees just as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, in this country, in general elections, we only have two viable choices to vote for. (That is in large part because our communications media gives other parties no attention or credence.) We deserve to have a role in picking who those nominees are just as much as any other U.S. citizen.
As far as the two major Parties are concerned, they both absolutely need to consider independents when running for office, because neither of the two major parties would win many elections without the support of independents. Enough said about that.
A word about so-called “Party Loyalty”
I am against “party loyalty” of any kind. The political parties should exist to serve the interests of us, their constituents, not the other way around. That is what we elect our public officials for. Even when I considered myself a Democrat at heart, I never was of the mindset that I would ever vote for a person just because they are a Democrat, as long as I know anything about the candidates. I vote for the candidates, not the Party. If I ever encountered a Republican Presidential nominee who I preferred to the Democratic nominee, I would vote for the Republican nominee. That has never yet happened, but it is always a possibility. A Presidential candidate has to earn my vote, not take it for granted. I definitely would have voted Republican in 1860, when Abe Lincoln was the Republican nominee. Keep in mind that he ran as a third party candidate that year.
Parties change over time, and when they fail to represent the interests of their constituents, those constituents should not feel an obligation to continue to vote for them. Whenever one’s Party nominates someone who is unacceptable to them, they should not vote for them, except possibly on the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.
What kind of Democrat I was
I have always considered myself a liberal Democrat. Voting liberal is more important to me than voting Democrat. What do I mean by that? I think JFK said it as well as anyone I ever heard, defending himself as a liberal at the Democratic Convention of 1960:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who…. welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Why I no longer consider myself a Democrat at heart
Over the last several years I have seen the Democratic Party move further and further to the right. Perhaps in large part it is the result of the increasing influence of money in politics. The leaders of the Democratic Party in general appear to believe that it is more important to satisfy the wealthy and powerful entities that fund its campaigns than the majority of its constituents. I have seen the DNC time and time again back its establishment candidates against liberal challengers. I have heard some DUers say that the DNC has the right to do whatever they want to further their interests because they are not part of our government. But though they are not part of our government per se, they are responsible for supporting the politicians who become part of our government. It may be true that they can do whatever they want, but they’re not going to do it with my money anymore.
Perhaps the biggest example of moving to the right is Barack Obama himself. I gained my first in-depth familiarity with him when I read his autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope”. I found the first chapter to be extremely irritating. It reeked of “bipartisanship”. In his effort to bend over backwards to be fair to Republicans he disparaged his own party and cast them as too liberal. Consistent with that, he has been in my opinion the most conservative Democratic President in over a century, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, for reasons discussed in my previous posts, including this one. This is reflected in his job creation record, which is worse than the administrations of any other Democratic President since records began to be kept on this issue in the 1920s. Until his administration, job creation per term under every Democratic President since FDR had exceeded that of every Republican President since FDR.
“Too big to fail” (or prosecute) financial institutions and our economy
One of our worst problems today is our economy and associated income inequality, which is as great as any time since records have been kept on the issue. The recession of 2008, followed by its jobless recovery, was no accident. It was caused by reckless actions by our huge financial institutions, assisted by severe loosening of government controls over those institutions, many which had been in place since they were introduced during FDR’s administration. One could say that the loosening really got going during Bill Clinton’s Presidency, when he signed the law that repealed Glass-Steagall. Huge financial institutions were bailed out with taxpayer money during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, at a total cost to us of $17.5 trillion, as the CEOs of the responsible institutions walked away from it all with huge bonuses. Worse yet, there were no strings attached to the bailouts, and there was no federal prosecution of the banks for their illegal activities that led to the crisis. William Greider explains, in an article titled “How Wall Street Crooks Get out of Jail Free”:
The nation is left to face a disturbing spectacle: crime without punishment. Massive injuries were done to millions of people by reckless bankers, and vast wealth was destroyed by elaborate financial deceptions. Yet there are no culprits to be held responsible.
Now the DNC is supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been largely funded by those same financial institutions. They tried to coronate her as the inevitable nominee of the Democratic Party even before any serious competition arose. I cannot condone such activities.
In the early money race to launch the campaigns of the leading contenders, an article titled “Wall Street is Putting Money Behind These Presidential Candidates”, the following statistics were given for campaign contributions from “big bank institutions”, which include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and others:
Clinton: $432,610
Bush: $353,150
Rubio: $105,669
So ask me if I believe that Hillary is going to be more responsive to the economic welfare of those financial institutions or to the economic welfare of the vast majority of her constituents. Ask yourselves that same question.
On the “Bernie or Bust” Phenomenon
I will not say that I will not vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee. I will be terribly disappointed, but I will have several months to make up my mind. If she chooses Bernie as her running mate, or someone with similar liberal and courageous leanings (there aren’t many of them), that will certainly sway my decision in her direction, if I feel that her running mate is likely to have some substantive influence in her administration. I did not vote for Obama in either election. I voted for Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate in 2008, and voted again for the Green Party in 2012. But I lived in a safely blue state at the time. I did campaign for Obama in Virginia (a swing state) in 2008, but voted for McKinney in Maryland. By 2012 I was so disappointed by his rightward leanings that I neither voted nor campaigned for him (See link above if you want more specific reasons on why). This time my decision will be more difficult because I live in a swings state – Florida.
But though I don’t consider myself part of the Bernie or Bust group, I certainly can understand and respect their reasons. I just recently read a DU post that postulated 4 potential reasons for a Bernie or Bust position: Personal animosity towards Hillary; Marxism; Blackmail, or; Narcissism. That’s ridiculous. I don’t have much if any personal animosity for Hillary. But if you feel that a candidate will not represent your interests because their campaign is funded by powerful wealthy interests who have done tremendous damage to our country and are likely to do more damage, what reason do you have to vote for them other than that you are even more turned off by the only other viable candidate in the race – and we don’t even know who that will be yet. Bernie is not a Marxist, and I don’t see what narcissism could possibly have to do with it. Bernie supporters are not narcissists. They are just very excited about having the possibility of electing the most liberal, independent minded, honest, and best U.S. President in their lifetime. And the majority of them are liberals who have a hard time voting for candidates who appear to be far to the right on some very important issues.
Hillary is now refusing to debate Bernie in New York, on the lame excuse that she doesn’t like his “tone”. This campaign isn’t about her, and it isn’t about Bernie. It’s about the important issues that face the American people. New Yorkers have a right to hear what she now has to say about those issues. She receives huge sums of money for making speeches to Wall Street, and then she refuses to release those speeches to the American people. What did she say to Wall Street that she doesn’t want the American people to hear about? And she’s been as quiet as a mouse about the voter suppression that is occurring in the Democratic primaries. Hillary supporters: Don’t these things bother you about her? Don’t they help you understand why some people don’t want to vote for her?
= new reply since forum marked as read
I was one of those young people(way back in 2001) who didn't think politics effected me at all and I just ignored it completely. I had traveled up to DC from Florida via plane on a business trip that September(I think the 9th) and walked into the grocery store one morning on my way to a meeting and you could tell right away the entire atmosphere had changed. Customers were actually talking to each other, and lots of people seemed genuinely rattled. I got in my car and drove into Rockville MD, and I remember that I could see the smoke in the sky but I still hadn't put two and two together.
I didn't find out what had actually happened until I arrived at my meeting, which had been canceled, and everyone was glued to the news. I had a friend who was supposed to be in the Pentagon that morning but had car trouble, and my mother who lived in Sommerset county PA at the time actually saw the plane descending.
Having been on the periphery of it and being relatively clueless, I wanted to try to learn about what went on. Eventually I saw G.W. Bush give his speech about all the iraq BS and knew he was trying to hookwink people right awyay. By that point it was pretty clear that the Saudis were the ones to go after, and I knew I was being lied to by the media. I went and read as many books as I could to catch up on my lost time(my first two were lies and the lying liars, and Molly Ivins Bushwhacked).
By the time the war had started, Howard Dean came along and seemed to be the only one on my side so I campaigned for him as much as possible. When I realized I had to register, I was going to go independent because I was still foggy one the issues. I ended up going Democrat I was all in for Dean. I even took a job as a software developer for the DNCs campaign contributions database.
After the scream incident he just kind of fell apart and faded away, and my first foray into politics was very disappointing.
I remained a Democrat for years because they seemed to line up with my belief system, at least better than the alternative. I voted for Obama twice, was disappointed twice but still thought he was just playing his 3 dimensional chess... 
But I'm no longer a Democrat, and wouldn't remain unless Bernie is elected and the party undergoes significant change, change that only Sanders can bring. Where he goes I go, and when the smoke clears, if Hillary is the nominee, I'm going back to being independent. And I'll be either writing in Bernie's name, or voting Jill Stein.
Whew: TLDR: Ignorant, Woke, Heartbroken, Kept the Faith through Obama, Disappointed, reaching final straw. Go Bernie Go!
(I apologize for any rambling or nonsense in here, I'm on very little sleep at the moment.)
means an actual party. I do not agree with the DNC/DLC/DWS, so, it appears this is the only way to voice my opposition is to be Unaffiliated. That said, I will vote democratic. Over the years the democratic party has continued its rightward march and has left me, so, I vote by the candidate.
About Independents/Unaffiliated, here is a Gallup graph illustrating Independents/Unaffiliated had best be paid attention to!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx
the same poster you replied to. Notice it's directly under yours and not offset. That's because we are both responding to the same poster.
I found your OP to be thoughtful and on point.
