David M. Shribman: As go the independents, so goes the country

There's loads of talk about the struggle among the Democrats about how, or whether, to accommodate democratic socialists in the party. There's loads of talk about the struggle among Republicans about the future of the MAGA movement once Donald Trump glides into formal political retirement. But what if those aren't the most important moving parts in American political culture?

There's ample reason to think that the shape of American politics won't be governed by the two parties' choices, as important as they are. That's because Americans increasingly are growing impatient with the two parties ― and because more Americans than ever are identifying not as members of the party of their fathers (as the old chestnut used to tell us) nor as members of any party at all. Indeed, nearly half of all Americans now identify as political independents.

That phenomenon ― a new high in modern American life ― has crucial implications that cascade across the immediate (the midterm congressional elections), the middle-term (the 2028 presidential election) and the future (well into the 2030s, which aren't so far away).

For the immediate term, this development renders some of the established political principles irrelevant. Certainly, the conventional view that parties holding the White House still are at a disadvantage in the sixth year of a presidency makes the November midterms especially perilous for the Republicans. But other waves that are roiling the mainstreams of the country's politics are emerging and seem persistent. Some of them include the growing contempt voters have for both parties, the impatience they feel with the internecine struggles that are dominating political conversation and the concern Americans feel about the divisions that are separating them.

One example of how conventional assumptions no longer apply: Ordinarily, the rally-round-the-flag impulse (and its corollary: rally-round-the-president) means that Americans instinctively support American military action at the outset of a conflict. In August 1965, the month of the first major purely American action in Vietnam and when 185,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam, 61% of Americans supported Lyndon B. Johnson's war policy, according to a Gallup poll. In March 2003, the month George W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Iraq, 72% of Americans supported the war. The support for American military action persisted for many months. But three months into the Iran war, only 34% of Americans said they backed Trump's war.

That's but one of the diversions from American political tradition that's being played out today. So in the broader context of the tectonics of the country's politics, the growth in the numbers of Americans who consider themselves unaligned with the two established parties doesn't seem out of sync with the times.

To wit: Gallup found that 45% of American adults last year considered themselves political independents. The polling firm has been finding for many years that independents are the largest group of Americans, but the percentage of independents has increased significantly in the past decade and a half. In 2011, the level first registered 40%.

The movement toward independent status does not necessarily mean Americans are withdrawing from the Republican and Democratic ranks. It means that newer entries into the country's political ranks are not associating with the parties. Indeed, it's clear that the growth among independents is powered by younger people, with majorities of Gen Z and millennials considering themselves independents.

There is, however, increasing skepticism of the parties among all voters.

A survey taken last month by the respected Marquette Law School Poll showed that a quarter of all Americans have an unfavorable view of both parties.

"It is not a good thing that independents are so sour to both parties," said Charles Franklin, who directs the poll. "It speaks to the legitimacy of the political system."

In their 2025 book "From Dominance to Parity: America's Political Parties and the New Era of Electoral Instability," the political scientists David W. Brady and Brett Parker show that, in virtually all of the last 17 presidential elections, independents voted for the winner.

Gallup noted that "a shift in independents' political leanings caused the Republican Party advantage that aided Trump's reelection to dissipate almost as soon as he took office." At the end of 2025, the president's overall support rating was 36% ― but among independents, it was only 25%, according to Gallup. This month, Trump's approval ratings generally fall in the high 30s.

So what's the implication of this for the midterms?

It means that even if turnout operations by both parties are spectacularly successful, that alone won't be enough to carry the day in states where Senate and House races are close. The winners in those races will have to appeal to independents.

That's not so easy a task in an era of divisions prompted by lurches to the extremes.

It requires some navigation toward the center, which itself is not so easy because one of the peculiarities of the American political system is that primaries generally produce candidates who lean right or left. There are exceptions, of course; in this month's Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary, it was the relative moderate, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who prevailed over a Democratic Socialist, Francesca Hong. But generally, primaries have low turnouts, and those who do vote tend not to be moderates.

In practical terms, candidates such as Abdul El-Sayed, who barely prevailed in the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, will have enormous pressure to nudge toward the center for the general election. Some of his views ― he's not a democratic socialist but he shares some outlooks of the group ― will be anathema to independents.

Indeed, a Fox News poll showed 55% of registered voters view El-Sayed negatively. Then again, 47% view his rival, Rep. Mike Rogers, similarly. The irresistible conclusion is that independents will hold sway there, as they will elsewhere.

And how about the situation in Montana, where 42% of voters identify as independents, according to a recent Montana Free Press poll? In the Senate race in that reliably Republican state, independent candidate Seth Bodnar, a former University of Montana president, has double the support of Democrat Air Force Lt. Col. (ret.) Alani Bankhead, though former U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme, the Republican, still holds the lead. As for Democratic Senate nominees in Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota: They all dropped out, making way for surging independent candidates.

•••

David M. Shribman is the former executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.