The Rise of Independents and the "Decline of the Parties"

In the next few pages we will examine some of the implications that observers of the American political scene have found in the growing number of Independents. Many of these fairly portentous conclusions are associated with explicit rejections of a view of individual political behavior that their authors attribute to The American Voter . But both these revi-

[34] Campbell et al., The American Voter , 143–44.

sionists and the objects of their criticism generally shared the analytic mistake that gave rise to this book: They combined all three kinds of Independents in analyzing data, or they assumed that this combination was appropriate.

We begin with the simple three-way distribution of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents that is commonly used to demonstrate the trend. As fig. 1.1 shows, Independents out-numbered Republicans as early as 1966, became more than a third of the sample in 1972, and first came within two percentage points of the Democrats in 1974. By the end of the 1980s Independents and Democrats had equal proportions of the sample.

The decline of the political parties has of course been a staple item in descriptions of the American political scene for most of this century. In the words of one believer, it is "a frequent refrain among experts in American political parties."^[35] The growth in Independents has become an important exhibit in discussion of this putative trend.^[36] "While claiming to be an Independent does not necessarily signify a positive commitment to 'Independence,' as a principle, it does reveal a lack of commitment to either of the major parties."^[37]

The implications of fewer committed adherents are explicated in this passage from H. G. Nicholas's recent interpretation of American politics:

Indeed one of the most conspicuous features of the contemporary electorate is the growing proportion—

[35] Howard L. Reiter, Parties and Elections in Corporate America (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987), 36.

[36] See Leon D. Epstein, Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), 4, 240; Nicholas Henry, Governing at the Grassroots , 3d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987), 111–12; James L. Gibson et al., "Whither the Local Parties? A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of the Strength of Party Organization," American Journal of Political Science 29 (February 1985): 139–40.

[37] Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde, Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections , rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1983), 240.

Figure 1.1
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the United States, 1952–1990

upwards of 30 percent—which has developed an indifference to party and describes itself as 'Independent.' As such it is unavailable for the day-to-day business of politics, the canvassing, the drumming up of interest in the minor offices, the attendance at meetings, the raising of funds—in short, the maintenance of the structure of participatory politics.^[38]

Some writers think that the trend toward more Independents portends not just weaker parties but the end of the party system.^[39] One respected scholar has suggested that "if the decline of partisan politics continues, . . . the loss will be that of democracy."^[40]

If the proportion of Americans who could be affected by party affiliation was shrinking, it seemed likely that another consequence of the trend would be greater electoral volatility:

Independents operate under no such constraints [as party loyalty]. By definition, their vote (and, for that matter, whether they choose to vote at all) is not anchored by party ties. . . . It is an unstable vote (and turnout) that is basically unpredictable over time, and introduces into elections an increased volatility that today's fluid politics do not need. . . . The independent vote is up for grabs. It has no allegiances. Its volatility and malleability does [sic ] little to ease the concern of those who value stability and order in American politics.^[41]

One casualty of this increased volatility might be effective government. In the opinion of Everett Carll Ladd, Jr., "The

[38] H. G. Nicholas, The Nature of American Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 57.

[39] Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970), 131–34.

[40] Gerald M. Pomper, "The Decline of the Party in American Elections," Political Science Quarterly 92 (Spring 1977): 41.

[41] William J. Crotty, American Parties in Decline , 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984), 37. For the same diagnosis of "much wider swings from one election to the next" from a scholar whose political perspective differs from Crotty's, see John H. Kessel, Presidential Campaign Politics , 2d ed. (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1984), 279.

fact that a very large proportion of the electorate has been cut loose from relatively stable party ties and has been left free to float necessarily compounds the fragility of the mandate that a modern president enjoys."^[42] Hedrick Smith draws a similar conclusion: "This free-floating independence of voters has encouraged the individualism of a new breed of politicians. Since the party brand name lacks the old punch, some candidates run away from their party label when it suits them." Smith goes on to assert that this new breed of politicians with "highly independent campaign styles" is in turn less responsible to party leaders in Congress.^[43]

Some writers go beyond characterizing Independents as volatile and see them as something of a bloc.^[44] The authors of one textbook observe that "in a strong sense, independents are one of the two major parties."^[45] Well-known specialists in voting behavior say that "the large portion of the electorate, mostly young, who have no party ties remains available to

[42] Everett Carll Ladd, Jr., Where Have All the Voters Gone? 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 77.

[43] Smith, The Power Game , 685, 686.

[44] A list of other scholars who combine the three types of Independents for analysis would include Robert C. Luskin, John P. McIver, and Edward G. Carmines, "Issues and the Transmission of Partisanship," American Journal of Political Science 33 (May 1989): 444; Carole J. Uhlaner, "Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups," American Journal of Political Science 33 (May 1989): 417; Helmut Norpoth, "Under Way and Here to Stay: Party Realignment in the 1980s?" Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (Fall 1987): 385–86; Lee Sigelman et al., "Voting and Nonvoting: A Multi-Election Perspective," American Journal of Political Science 29 (November 1985): 757; Charles H. Franklin, "Issue Preferences, Socialization, and the Evolution of Party Identification," American Journal of Political Science 28 (August 1984): 469; and Stanley Feldman and Pamela Johnston Conover, "Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perception," Journal of Politics 45 (November 1983): 824.

[45] Kenneth S. Sherrill and David J. Vogler, Power, Policy and Participation (New York: Harper and Row, 1982), 317. Sherrill and Vogler also think that "we may be witnessing the disarray and deterioration of both parties" (emphasis in original) (p. 282).

attach itself to a new party coalition"^[46] Others think the beneficiaries of this big new bloc of potential supporters might not be limited to the existing two parties. Bruce A. Campbell wrote that one result of the increase in Independents "is the advantage that large numbers of Independents present to third parties. . . . The feeling lingers that sooner or later those Independents will find a cause around which they can rally."^[47] A few years later, Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde took the same line: "The great hope of third parties is the large percentage of the electorate (roughly one-third) who claim to have no party ties."^[48]

The trend toward independence is believed by some political scientists to be the first step toward partisan realignment, that is, one or more changes in the profile of identifiers with the two parties. At the least, more Independents make such a reshuffling of party affiliations more feasible: "Since the mid-1960s, the uncommitted share of the electorate has increased throughout the nation, thus raising the possibilities for realignment."^[49] By the mid-1980s, a historically significant realignment appeared imminent to William Schneider:

The Democrats are no longer the nation's normal majority party. That was the big political news of 1984. The big question for 1985 is whether the Republicans can take their place. One-third of all Americans call themselves Republicans, one-third call themselves Democrats and

[46] Kenneth Prewitt, Sidney Verba, and Robert H. Salisbury, Introduction to American Government , 5th ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 359.

[47] Bruce A. Campbell, The American Electorate (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 268.

[48] Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde, Change and Continuity , 237.

[49] Paul Allen Beck, "Realignment Begins? The Republican Surge in Florida," paper delivered at the 1981 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 14; see also Martin P. Wattenberg, "The Hollow Realignment: Partisan Change in a Candidate-Centered Era," Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (Spring 1987): 58–74.

the remaining third are Independents. Is this the long-awaited realignment of American politics?^[50]

A more popular interpretation of the trend, however, or a more popular label for it, is "dealignment":

The present alignment is accompanied, indeed distinguished, by the continued weakening of voter loyalties to political parties in general. I erred four years ago when I argued that the question was whether a realignment or a dealignment was occurring. The larger change in voter alignments we are experiencing includes a greater reluctance on the part of many voters to express any underlying party preference, and an increased willingness to leave the candidate of their professed party with little hesitancy. In general party indentification is a more casual matter than it ever before has been.^[51]

The dealignment thesis, which is based on an assumed diminution of the importance of partisanship in voting, is often asserted without support.^[52] Advocates of the thesis are among the best-known students of public opinion and voting in America. William Schneider has called it "a major change in American politics."^[53] Paul Allen Beck sees the evidence of dealignment as "undeniable."^[54] Even Paul Kirk, former chairman of

[50] William Schneider, "Demos No Longer the Majority Party," Los Angeles Times , December 30, 1984, pt. IV, 1–2.

[51] Everett Carll Ladd, Jr., "As the Realignment Turns: A Drama in Many Acts," Public Opinion , December 1984–January 1985, 6.

[52] James E. Campbell and Joe A. Sumners, "Presidential Coattails in Senate Elections," American Political Science Review 84 (June 1990): 513, 520, 521; Edward G. Carmines, John P. McIver, and James A. Stimson, "Unrealized Partisanship: A Theory of Dealignment," Journal of Politics 49 (May 1987): 376–400.

[53] William Schneider, "Antipartisanship in America," in Parties and Democracy in Britain and America , ed. Vernon Bogdanor (New York: Praeger, 1984), 100.

[54] Paul Allen Beck, "Incomplete Realignment: The Reagan Legacy for Parties and Elections," in The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance , ed. Charles O. Jones (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1988), 165.

the Democratic National Committee, has claimed that "realignment is a myth but so-called dealignment is a reality."^[55]