It’s election season again, so it’s time to talk about two similar concepts that are already appearing in races around the country:  Lip-service conservatism and illusionary independence.

By far and away the most prevalent of these two is lip-service conservatism.  Every election cycle or so, most Republicans and Democrats come along and espouse at least some conservative principles in order to show that they’re as American as Mom and apple pie.  Then they get elected, and much, if not all, of that conservatism suddenly finds itself elsewhere, especially come vote time.

Democrats in particular are brazen about this when they use lip-service conservatism.  They’re Pelosi clones for the most part, but that doesn’t stop them from pretending to be as mainstream as you and me when they need the votes to get elected.  Democrats are as Democrats do, not say.  Rely on their records, not their words, to define them before you think of voting for one.

RINOs and Democrats are bad about lip-service conservatism, and it has annoyed me and a lot of other conservatives to no end.   But another concept has risen about which independents and moderates should be concerned.  For lack of an existing term, I’ll call it illusionary independence.

Charlie Crist is the most prominent practitioner of illusionary independence this election cycle.  He left the Republican party just shy of the filing deadline for independents because he knew he would lose the primary to Rubio.  However, his stated reasons were that he felt that the two-party system was broken and he wanted to rise above it.  I suspect he even might have felt that way, given that the primary didn’t go the way he thought he was entitled to have it go.

Politicians practice illusionary independence because they want to appeal to independents and moderates.  Granted, some few may mean it when they say that they’re independent because they don’t like the two-party system or are only working with everyone to make the country a better place.  For the most part though, it’s just another political tactic.  As in the case of lip-service conservatism, it’s a package of spin.  Politicians using it are pretending to be above the constraints of confining partisanship and rigid ideological thinking.  Either that, or they’re in a party and pretending they’re making decisions based solely on what’s best for the country, whether or not deeper analysis of their position on an issue says otherwise.

In reality, it’s something else.  In the case of Crist, it’s a transparent explanation of why he threw a hissy-fit after losing a primary to Rubio.  In McCain’s case, he thought moderates, independents, and the media would make him president if he just annoyed conservatives enough and called it “doing what’s best for the country.”  Others bend or break under the media pressure and explain why they fold from their more conservative positions this way.  But the bottom line is that if you’re independent or moderate, you’re being treated to your very own variant on lip-service conservatism.

Unless the records say otherwise, lip-service conservatism and illusionary independence are all just rhetoric.  The real principles of a politician, or whether or not their “independence” has been good for the country, can be seen in their votes or the results of their legislation.