The "Independent Voter"?

I've been thinking about the "independent voter" lately. It sounds so noble--as if a person is not tied down to any party, any candidate, but is "free" to vote what he thinks at the time of the election. (How typical of our society's thinking today.) Actually, a person who calls himself an "independent voter" is, in my opinion, either unmoored or very shallow in his values.

The differences between the two major political parties are real, are documented, and are extensive. The differences represent major opposites in philosophy of government and of life. These two parties are at extreme odds with each other. How in the world can a person say he can go in one direction or another, voting for the nominee he chooses at the time of the election, without betraying deeply held values?

I'm not talking about local elections, or even state ones. But our two national parties always select nominees who reflect their very different and very strong ways of thinking. I may disagree wholeheartedly with someone of the opposite political stripe, but I can respect him for holding to his principles. An "independent" who is proud of having no label does not engender that same respect.

Actually, the "independents" are probably far fewer than thought. Elections really boil down to how many of the philosophically-faithful a party can get out at election time. It's time for the (so-called) influence of the "independent voter" to no longer be given so much credit every four years.