Independent ≠ Indecisive

I choose to be unaffiliated. I choose to not bridle myself to a party line. I refuse labels, avoid pigeon-holes, and otherwise try to steer clear of anything that would allow a neat and tidy package to be wrapped around my thoughts, opinions or allow people to assume “where I am coming from.” As soon as someone assumes something about me, I'm concerned that they are no longer listening to what I have to say without coloring it with a prepackaged and presumptive label. I'm a reasonably intelligent citizen, not a demographic.

If you are a registered political party member, do you believe that those who are not are somehow indecisive, fence sitting, weather vanes waiting to see which way the wind will blow? If so, why? Shouldn't you be more concerned that you are surrounded by people who mostly agree with you? It's easy to have an opinion if everyone around you agrees with you.

The media loves to label people. Look at local articles from the Hartford Courant or the Journal Inquirer written about events surrounding BOD or BOE meetings and hot political issues. It usually follows this form:

Issue X is supported by This Party, and opposed by That Party. Director Umpty Squat may have a valid position on Issue X and is quoted in the paper: “I feel that because of these very well thought out and logical reasons, I cannot support this issue,” says Director Squat, a That Party member.

There it is at the end, the party label. As if to say, “oh... of course he opposes it, he is a member of That Party.” What if you are a member of This Party and you agree with the reasoning of Director Squat? Does that mean that you can't publicly agree and vote with him on Issue X because he is a member of That Party?

I am often encouraged by the writings of, and books about the founding fathers of our republic. Their acumen should be known by more than just the learned, or people who have an interest in history or government. I think most people would be amazed at how relevant their wisdom is, even after more than two hundred years. One of my reasons for being unabashedly unaffiliated is George Washington's open letter to the people of the United States published in most of the country's newspapers at the conclusion of his second presidential term in 1796.

In one of the subjects of this farewell letter, President Washington warned the American people, “in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.” He went on to write that partisanship, “serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms,” and that political parties also, “kindles the animosity of one part against another.”

I ask you, doesn't that sound like the status quo at all political levels of municipal, state and federal government? Making mountains out of mole hills to distract us. Lighting fires of animosities against each other, and then fervently fanning the flames. Without looking through the lens of a political party can make some things I read in the paper, or on local message boards seem outright ridiculous. Especially after seeing that this has been going on for centuries.

Please, I ask those who are of the opinion that unaffiliated voters are indecisive to not confuse party loyalty with integrity. They are not the same thing.

I leave you with a final thought from F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”