I don’t have issue with the article or the descriptive tone at all. I just wonder if these are “independents” in the two major parties, or just “ideologues”. The conservative and liberal and libertarian ideologies (and the myriad others) define themselves by their ideology instead of the party they vote with. In a parliamentary situation, these would all be different parties (I assume).

I see ideologues as being the same as party, just more fractionalized. That’s good as a decentralization of power, but it’s still doing politically what either the party powers want or what the promoters of ideology argue for.

I think that those who are independent in the way the article describes, aren’t. They are merely ideologues within a general side of the political spectrum.

True independents evaluate each issue or principle in its own light and wish to vote accordingly. Hence the frustration with the current, party-run political system.

The first step of leadership is to identify the lay of the land and the core problems. As Abraham Lincoln said, “If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.”

“”Ignorance maketh most men go into a party, and shame keepeth them from getting out of it.” George Savile, Lord Halifax under William III and Mary of England.