# The Anderson Constituency **URL:** **By** Jeff Friedman **Published:** August 1, 1980 --- “It is difficult to place John Anderson’s supporters at any single point on the traditional Left/Right spectrum.” ## The Anderson constituency It is difficult to place John Anderson’s supporters at any single point on the traditional Left/Right spectrum. They are certainly not conservatives: Anderson’s candidacy was born as an alternative to Mr. Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan. And Anderson has said that he could support candidate Edward Kennedy much more readily than candidate Reagan. Moreover, on the campaign trail, Anderson has received his wildest cheers when denouncing Reagan’s ideas. Perhaps, then, Anderson-ians are liberals? It’s certainly true that without liberal volunteers, money (from Norman Lear and, until recently, Stuart Mott), and expertise (liberal media man David Garth is running Anderson’s campaign), the Anderson effort would shrivel up and die. But there is another major source of support for Anderson’s candidacy: the great body of Americans loosely labeled “independents.” Attracting more of their support will be vital to Anderson’s future chances. These “independents” are neither liberals nor conservatives; nor are they “moderates.” The whole point of being an independent, after all, is to escape the two-party, two-poled political spectrum. Being caught between those poles, in the “moderate center,” isn’t much of an escape. Anderson seems to understand that his independent supporters reject the entire liberal/conservative/moderate trichotomy, and is careful to avoid pasting any of those labels on himself. Instead, he mixes “liberal” positions such as favoring gun control, the Equal Rights Amendment and the windfall profits tax, with “conservative” ones such as reducing Social Security taxes and the minimum wage and increasing defense spending. When he mixes his issues, he does it in such a way as to show his independence, not his moderation. The famous “Anderson Difference” is that Anderson is “courageous” enough to break out of the two-party, liberal/conservative/moderate mold. If you were an independent, mightn’t you like to think of yourself as courageous enough to be different? And mightn’t you pick a candidate on the basis of that quality? Anderson is the perfect candidate to appeal to such independents. He did not begin his campaign as an outsider trying to do in the two-party system. Like many of his independent supporters he started out _within_ that system and (the story goes) became disillusioned when his ideas didn’t fit a pre-set, illogical Republican mold. Anderson’s public agonizing over whether to stick it out in the GOP or break away from the two parties did not, contrary to some expectations, turn people off. The independents loved that little drama because it so closely represented what they felt they’d gone through themselves in declaring their own independence from the two established parties. Similarly, independents admire Anderson for having “grown out of” the conservatism he displayed as a congressman, when he supported the Vietnam War and nuclear power and authored his constitutional amendment to recognize Jesus as America’s Savior. For any other politician to plead “growth” in response to charges of Neanderthalism would smack of crass cynicism. But Anderson is the Independent, and independents have had to change their minds a lot in recent years—often about the same issues Anderson has come to reconsider—as the old liberal and conservative foundations of faith have crumbled around them. Anderson can thus turn potential embarrassments—like his record—into political advantages by using them to promote his “independent” image. “Independents” are a diverse lot, of course. They include, among others, extremists of both the Left and the Right, and those who are so alienated that they are far beyond voting in elections or caring who wins them. But Anderson’s independents are mainstream, often suburban Americans who tend to be quite politically involved. They are mainly white, educated, and fairly affluent. They are neither liberals, conservatives nor moderates; perhaps they are best called “progressives.” They support Anderson because they vote for those they think are like them; and in their minds Anderson not only is independent, but is intelligent, sane and compassionate as well. For example, take Anderson’s “50-50” tax plan, which would use the revenue from a 50¢ per gallon gas tax to finance a 50 percent reduction in Social Security taxes. The proposal makes no economic sense, and there is no ready-made constituency for it, but the dynamics of Anderson’s support have made it work for him anyway. The complexity of the plan appeals to the progressive independents’ distaste for quick-fix bromides which insult their intelligence. And its very un-popularity makes Anderson look courageous for proposing it. Similarly, his commitment to continued welfare spending proves his “compassion.” And while his “politics of sacrifice” doubtless does attract those liberals who have to believe that less is more—since, these days, their economic policies are leaving us with less and less—its appeal to independents probably has more to do with what they think his proposals say about Anderson’s character, his difference from all the conventional politicians, his intelligence, and his integrity. In a way Anderson’s popularity is a profoundly conservative phenomenon in that it depends upon the belief that if we can just elect the right people—good, kind, smart people like you and me—our political system will work, our government will solve our problems and the status quo can remain basically unchanged. “I believe I can make government work,” Anderson recently told the _Christian Science Monitor_. So what else is new? On the other hand, the Anderson Phenomenon can be seen as a tentative, tiny step in the right direction—that is to say, the direction of radical libertarianism and the end of political power. The first such step was the election of Jimmy Carter, who—remember this?—passed himself off as a fresh face, an outsider. Now there is John Anderson, who is a little bit more outside—outside the whole two-party system, in fact. The fact that this candidate who claims to reject both liberalism and conservatism and propose “new ideas” is attracting almost as much popular support as the President of the United States can only be a good sign. In a perverse sense, it would even be nice if John Anderson could win this election. For when he proved to be just as devoid of “new ideas” as fellow outsider Jimmy Carter has turned out to be, when he proved to be just as unable to “make government work,” there would be no more graphic illustration of the bankruptcy of statism. After two successive “reform” presidents had turned out to be as incompetent and inadequate as all the rest, it would be easy to radicalize the disenchanted progressives who are now so cautiously looking for an alternative to liberalism. Such speculation aside, the disillusionment of progressive independents which is suggested by the rise of John Anderson presents immediate opportunities to the libertarian movement. As often as it has been repeated that anyone with his heart in the right place must automatically favor government action, the disastrous results of such action—to say nothing of its utter failure to even ameliorate the social problems it is supposed to solve—is apparently beginning to give pause to progressive voters. What libertarians must do is successfully make the next point: that progressive concerns do not conflict with liberty, that libertarianism and true progressivism are complementary. This may seem a difficult task. Anderson, after all, has attracted independent support by advocating such clearly statist policies as huge gas taxes, and he has proved his “compassion” in the orthodox fashion—that is, by equating the interests of the dispossessed with “social spending.” But there is no such thing as an independent orthodoxy. Any candidate who can project personal qualities like independence, intelligence, courage, sanity, and compassion will be able to attract the support of progressive independents, regardless of whether he adopts the particular positions which Anderson has used to establish that he possesses these qualities. For the libertarian movement to attract the support of progressive independents, then, requires first that Libertarian Party candidates come across as good, humanitarian people. Their aversion to taxes must not take the mean-spirited tone so often adopted by Howard Jarvis; they must not sound as if they propose to balance the budget at the expense of the poor. The Libertarian approach must also be “intelligent.” John B. Oakes has written that “what has helped Mr. Anderson, especially among the young and the politically independent, is the almost poignant yearning for a President who will . . . not offer sugar-coated palliatives as a substitute for policy.” An Anderson fundraising letter repeatedly criticizes conventional politicians for “condescension,” “simplism,” and “cooing” as if we were “children, not citizens,” and promises that under an Anderson Administration, we would deal with our leaders on a basis of “mutual respect for each other’s intelligence.” If Libertarians want to appear respectful of the intelligence of progressive independents, they must avoid presenting libertarianism in such a way that it seems to be a simplistic belief that all government intervention is always bad. Instead they should attack the simplism of the notion that coercive state action is the remedy for all social ills and explain the principles which operate to make state action ineffective and destructive. Libertarian candidates must also remember that the biggest asset they possess is that they alone are proposing new ideas, new solutions, new principles, and new politics. Now, more than ever—to borrow a successful political slogan—libertarians must resist the temptation to compromise their views; for now, principled, courageous politicians who are unafraid to take unpopular positions are being accorded unprecedented respect. One lesson of Anderson’s success is that voters who respect a candidate’s integrity will support him even when they don’t agree with him about every issue. Espousing “reasonable radicalism” is not only the right way to campaign, it is now the most effective way to present a political alternative to the millions of voters who have responded to John Anderson: as the campaign progresses, Anderson’s veneer of principle will surely begin to wear thin as the media begin critically examining his inconsistencies and discovering that his “new” ideas are only a grab-bag of the old “solutions” long offered by both the Left and the Right. At the presidential level, Ed Clark is the ideal candidate to make a serious libertarian appeal to the Anderson constituency. Clark has a brilliantly straightforward ability to make the progressive humanity of libertarianism both obvious and concrete. He recently visited the riot-torn city of Miami, for example, and addressed the social conditions which had contributed to Miami’s problems. “For years,” Clark said, “the policies of the federal government have destroyed jobs, closed off economic opportunity, and kept the poor out of the economic mainstream.” And he pointed out that “welfare recipients, unable to find jobs in a government-manipulated economic mainstream, are bullied, interrogated, stigmatized, and dominated by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats’ own jobs depend on keeping the welfare rolls up. The cost to taxpayers is soaring, yet welfare recipients barely receive enough to live on,” because the majority of the money in the welfare budget goes to the operating expense of the program itself. Clark called for the adoption of huge educational tax credits to enable poor families to choose decent schools, and for the designation of Miami as America’s first “urban enterprise zone” under a program designed to stimulate rapid economic development of depressed inner-city areas. “Under this proposal,” Clark said, “we will suspend all taxes, regulations, zoning, minimum wage laws and other economic controls, as well as restrictions on international trade. Miami has a large supply of industrious people willing to work to get ahead. I suggest that the government get out of their way and let them succeed.” Clark will doubtless establish, for all who hear him, that libertarians care about people—indeed, that their principles are important to libertarians because they care about people. His soft-spoken manner will contrast very favorably with Anderson’s self-righteous moralism, a posture which doesn’t sit well with most Americans. And, of course, Clark’s Libertarian Party will offer a real alternative to the two-party system. For those who are disillusioned with politics-as-usual, the excitement of an “independent” establishment politician who emphasizes that he is not running against the two major parties is bound to fade away. Such independents will then be ready for the next step away from conventional politics—a third party. But of course, none of this will come to pass if Clark is unable to speak to the American people. His most effective forum would be the presidential debates which will take place this fall, probably under the auspices of the League of Women Voters. Clark is scheduled to debate Citizens’ Party candidate Barry Commoner on August 3 at the Students for a Libertarian Society national convention in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and there has been increasing speculation that he might also be considered for inclusion in the major autumn debates. Morton Kondracke of _The New Republic_ believes that “President Carter . . . may well craftily try to engineer a repeat of Reagan’s victory in Nashua, New Hampshire, by inviting Libertarian Ed Clark and ecologist Barry Commoner, too, in hopes that Anderson will refuse.” Rosalynn Carter and Carter campaign chairman Robert Strauss have both publicly mentioned, when asked whether the President might debate Anderson, that Clark will be on more state ballots than Anderson; and Carter himself has said that he is willing to debate any candidates who are on enough ballots to be capable of winning the election. Clark passed that point on May 6. The League of Women Voters is now trying to come up with a formula for deciding which candidates should be invited to its debates. If the League can get away with it, it seems to want to find a formula which would include only the Democratic and Republican nominees and John Anderson. But, as we have said, the ballot status criterion won’t be enough to do that trick. As the _Wall Street Journal_ has commented, although it “might include Mr. Anderson, . . . it would also include several other aspirants, notably Libertarian Party candidate Edward Clark, who already has met the legal requirements for ballot status in 32 states, and possibly environmentalist Barry Commoner of the Citizens’ Party. So League officials are considering other ways to limit the number of debaters. Another criterion likely to be applied to the candidates will be their support in the public opinion polls. That would make it easier to exclude Messrs. Clark and Commoner.” Of course, only already-known politicians can do well in the polls—and the best way to become well-known is by participating in a televised debate. To add further irony, as Clark Communications Director Ed Crane noted in a recent letter to League president Ruth J. Hinerfeld, “Anderson himself was just an asterisk in the Republican primary polls prior to his appearance in the Iowa debate. Had the criterion of significant support in a public opinion poll been applied to Mr. Anderson in Iowa, he would never have emerged as a serious candidate.” He would not, in fact, have achieved the poll standing which now might qualify him for the fall debates. Where does this leave Ed Clark? Out in the cold, unless the League can be shamed into including all candidates who could theoretically win the election. Libertarians—and many independents who favor fair play—are writing to the League and the television networks demanding a standard which doesn’t discriminate against alternative candidates. While they’re at it, they might write to George Gallup and Louis Harris and _Time_ and _Newsweek_ and _The New York Times_. They aren’t even asking about Ed Clark in their polls. One pollster who is not ignoring Clark is California’s Mervin Field, who recently surveyed the “name recognition and image appraisal” of 22 potential candidates for California office in 1982. According to Field, 9 percent of all Californians now view Clark favorably, including 3 percent who are “strongly favorable” toward him; yet only 25 percent of all Californians know who Clark is. These figures (along with the fact that a healthy 8 percent of the 18- to-40 year olds surveyed last spring by the National Opinion Research Center favored Clark among the available presidential candidates—and this well before the beginning of Clark’s full-time campaign) must gladden the hearts of Clark’s supporters, despite the problems he’s having getting into the presidential debates. ☐ LR summer intern Jeff Friedman is on leave from Brown University. He was previously the Eastern Director of Students for a Libertarian Society.