thanks (I take that as a compliment).

The rest of this comment is going to sound like me tooting my own horn, but my purpose is not to praise myself but to comment on politics and political discourse in America today and how I wish more people would be, and to point out what's great about the SC format and the participants here.

I hope one reason you have that impression of me (independence) is that I try not to let partisanship or a candidate preference or policy preference compromise my objectivity too much or keep me from exposing weaknesses in the case for what I prefer and strengths of the case for an opposing view. A lot of people (in general, I don't mean on SC) refuse to seriously consider and acknowledge legitimate points made by the other "side". I'm glad that the folks here on SC, for the most part, are not like that. Unfortunately, the trend in political discourse in America today is in the wrong direction. The fragmentation of the media (e.g., talk radio, ideological/partisan blogs, etc.) is leading people increasingly to adopt a hostile, partisan mindset that makes substantive discussion/debate very difficult.

The folks at RedState wanted to tar and feather me for pointing out that the Bush tax cuts have almost certainly had a large negative net impact on revenues. The folks at "progressive" economics blogs Economist's View and Beat the Press reacted similarly when I exposed a fundamental conceptual/analytical error they were making in their arguments against any cuts in projected Social Security spending. In neither case did my point constitute advocacy of any policy. They were both just corrections of analytical errors. Yet in both cases people immediately presumed my policy preference and attacked me for my supposed hidden, sinister motives and lack of integrity, instead of considering my point on its merits and discussing it as an analytical matter.

It just so happens in those particular cases I DID oppose the policy preferences of those groups (we do need to raise taxes and we do need to cut projected Social Security spending), but that doesn't change the fact that my points had nothing to do with any policy preference. And in many cases, I've (publicly) corrected people who were advocating the same policy or candidate that I was advocating if they were saying/writing something erroneous. It's a matter of intellectual integrity, and it's also a matter of humility: even if I feel confident that the policy I prefer is the best one, I can't be SURE, so doing my best to contribute to people having the best, most accurate info possible on which to base THEIR preference is a higher priority than just seeking the achievement of the policy I prefer. A lot of people are just fine with others having misconceptions as long as that's conducive to achieving the policy that those people are seeking. In extreme cases, that may be justified, but one should realize that it's an arrogant approach, based on the presumption that if others were better-informed they would lack the judgment or values or whatever to choose what is supposedly so obviously the right policy.

I'm not done complimenting myself...

I hope another reason you have that impression of me is that I try to think things through independently and critically rather than taking some tribalist partisan approach (my "side", "us" vs. "them") or simply using ideology as some be all end all formula for all policy choices. The result, in my case at least, is that my set of views doesn't fall neatly into any cookie-cutter category or label. I try to get the facts, assess as best I can what the consequences of policy (or candidate) X or Y would be, and apply the choices to my values. I try to overcome cognitive dissonance by allowing my views to adjust to new information, not just seeking and interpreting information to confirm and reinforce my views. (I just read a good book on this topic, by the way: http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101 )

Lastly, there is an important dimension to policy that does not lie on the left-right spectrum, and that third dimension is responsibility. Fiscal responsibility may be the most important example. Given our enormous, unsustainable projected long-term fiscal imbalance, someone who wants to raise taxes and keep spending policies unchanged is more fiscally responsible than someone who wants to cut taxes even if spending policies are unchanged. Someone who wants to cut projected spending and leave taxes unchanged is more fiscally responsible than someone who wants to leave both projected spending and taxes unchanged. The spending cutter and the tax raiser are obviously at different points on the left-right spectrum on fiscal policy, but they may be at the same point on the responsibility dimension of fiscal policy. I try to place a high priority on responsibility, rather than letting ideology (left-right) trump responsibility.

Boy, I really hope all of the above doesn't make me sound like an ass. What I said above about myself I would say about most folks here at SC (even if we end up with different policy and candidate preferences), which is why I like SC. I think the fact that SC is open to folks of all political/ideological perspectives is both cause and effect of most people here being pretty good in the ways I described above. I would guess that the people drawn to SC are seeking more thoughtful, substantive discussion/debate than those who stick to the partisan/ideological echo chamber circle j-rk blogs, and I think that knowing that people from a wide variety of perspectives are here kinda keeps people honest to a large extent in a way that the partisan blogs don't.

So everybody take a bow. (wait, wasn't I just ridiculing blogs that engage in circle j-rks? Yeah, but this is different. You guys know what I mean.)