On the MyViewMatters program last Thursday, Louisville's Joseph McCarthy, namely Ed Springston, accused me of something that I thought was rather amusing. To paraphrase, he said that I was going around posing as an independent even though I was really an "ultra-liberal". Part of me just wanted to leave this alone as the ignorant gasbaggery that it is, and hope that none of his good listeners would swallow that nonsense whole. But I thought, in the interest of community education, I should address this issue.

First, let me set my personal record straight: I am indeed liberal on many (although not all) political issues, and I have been registered as an independent since the mid-1990s. These are both facts, and I am unafraid for anyone to know these facts. I have never hid these facts.

It is also a fact that I usually support Democrats, but not always. I voted for Trey Grayson in his last election for Secretary of State, and Richie Farmer as well. I have also recently indicated tentative support for Republican Hal Heiner in the race for mayor of Louisville Metro. I always vote for the best person for the job, no matter which party they come from. It's just that in recent history, for me, most of the time, the Democratic candidate has seemed to me to be more qualified for the job in the elections I have participated in. (The Obama election was an aberration in that thinking, as even though I thought McCain was technically more qualified, he brought all his qualifications into serious question with his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. And McCain's campaign also was in continual tatters. I was actually ready to give McCain a fair consideration in the summer of 2008, but I also was expecting he was going to make a reasoned V.P. choice.)

I could also go through a litany of issues that I'm not on the liberal side about, but I think you get the picture at this point.

Anyway, so back to what this topic is really about.

What makes an individual an independent? According to Wikipedia, which is generally a reasonable source, an independent is "an individual not affiliated to any political party." And further:

Quote:

Independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between those of major political parties, or they may have a viewpoint based on issues that they do not feel that any major party addresses. Other independent candidates are associated with a political party and may be former members of it, but choose not to stand under its label. A third category of independents are those who may belong to or support a political party but believe they should not formally represent it and thus be subject to its policies.

Therefore, it's possible for someone to be liberal on many issues and also be an independent. Likewise, it's also possible for someone to be conservative on many issues and also be an independent. After all, Mr. Springston (as a ready public example) touts himself as an independent, yet takes all sorts of conservative positions on issues, and even registered as a Republican to run for office in the May primary. Now, I'm not going to accuse him of not being independent enough, despite his Republican Party registration. Oh nooooo.

It is also useful to note a couple things about independents in Kentucky. First of all, as of July 21, only 6.6% of Kentuckians are not either Democrats or Republicans, and of course, not all of that 6.6% are independents (they belong to the Libertarian or other minor parties).

Secondly, there really hasn't been that much political activity stirred up by independents in recent times. Beyond the perennial campaigns of Gatewood Galbraith (note: he often ran in party primaries), we have seen a so-far-unsuccessful movement to make Kentucky's primaries open to all Kentuckians. Some may believe that all independents should have supported this movement. I didn't simply because I respect the integrity of the parties to hold their own primaries. I am an independent because I don't want to vote in party primaries or be beholden in any way to any party's political structures. Also, based on what happened in the 2008 presidential race, we witnessed many shenanigans in open primaries, with many public attempts for spoilage. Rush Limbaugh's multiple attempts at such against Democratic primaries were particularly noteworthy, but also it should be noted that McCain wasn't very popular amongst Republicans early in the 2008 primary cycle, so he had to rely on independents and Democrats to go from an also-ran to front runner.

While I certainly take pride in being an independent, our numbers are very few in Kentucky, especially compared to many other states. My hypothesis about why there are so few of us is because the state has been so heavily Democratic for so long, there is a frequent mindset amongst those running for office that they can't possibly win many races unless they run as a Democrat. This has, of course, somewhat changed in recent years, but still, I honestly believe much of this mindset reigns today, especially in Louisville/Jefferson County.

---

What are your thoughts about the independent movement (as it were) in Kentucky and elsewhere? And if you are an independent yourself, how do you express it, politically speaking?

On edit: I added a wiki-link for Joseph McCarthy, so you can easily find out more about him and his infamous witch hunts.

On edit 2: I updated a link to the Kentucky statistics about voter registration.

Steve Magruder — LouHI Administrator and web programmer


Please become a fan of Louisville History & Issues on Facebook

I think many people view independents as moderates who cannot "find a home in the conservative GOP or the liberal democratic party". While this is often the case, I obviously don't think it is the case all the time.

I am a independent voter myself. 16 years ago when I registered to vote, I had a pretty negative view of political parties back then and didn't want to affiliate with one.