The Understanding Project
  • About
  • Blog
  • My Book

Resistance To No Labels

12/30/2010

 
It is no mystery to those who know me that I dislike political labels. Now I find some people that actually like them.
I find that people bring with them a lot of baggage when they interpret my words, reading too much into what I say based on what they think my ideological background is. They are often wrong, which makes conversation and debate very confusing and counterproductive. This is one reason I call myself an independent. The labels of “Republican” and “Democrat” only make things more difficult for me, as do “conservative” and “liberal.”

Example: I once came across a blog basically accusing conservatives who wanted the government “out of the free market” of anarchism. I left a comment trying to set the record straight and noting that, in the same way, liberals who “want the government out of the bedroom” could be accused of the same thing (Imagine how many market transactions occur in the bedroom!). I was from then on simply assumed to be a conservative. Everything I said from that point on was tainted, such that even when I admitted seeing bias on Fox News, I was attacked for not wholeheartedly enough condemning them for being purely a propaganda machine worse even than MSNBC!

I notice that while people may or may not generally fall into broad ideological categories (this is disputable), there are more than enough exceptions to the rules to warrant doing away with political labels entirely. They are misleading at best and divisive at worst. I want to be able to explain my position against the new health care law without then having to defend those who are against the “ground zero mosque” (I really wouldn’t mind having a mosque there.). Labels allow people to dismiss me as “one of those nut-job racist birthers” when I claim that Obama’s economic policies resemble those of Mussolini’s (It’s true.), shutting down debate. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” are ignored because the other side lumps them together with fringe wackos under the same label. Without labels, this would be harder to do. Ending the use of labels should be supported by anybody with a point they want to get across without being marginalized. Now I find that several people have come out against just such an anti-labels movement and I still don’t understand why. I hope this post will begin a discussion.

George F. Will writes in his column, “When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters…” I beg to differ. While one can use those terms as a general rule of thumb, they are incredibly imprecise. Was Dennis Kuccinich against the new health care law because he is a conservative – or because, as a liberal, he didn’t think that it went far enough? Was Ron Paul a liberal because he wanted us out of Iraq?

George F. Will also writes, “People have different political sensibilities; they cluster and the clusters are called parties.” Again, I beg to differ. From my perspective, the parties were already here, and people only “clustered” to them because they felt they had no choice. As long as the specter of “the spoiler effect” exists, we will be stuck with the same two parties we have now. Over time, through the “echo chamber effect”, people became ever more polarized until the illusion of clusters was complete. I have also read the work of different sociologists that seems to suggest that most of the political squabbles we have today are not based on ideology, but on group loyalty (Catholics, Baptists, Jews, blacks, Latinos, veterans) and self-interest (welfare recipients, transnational corporations, corrupt politicians).

George F. Will also writes, “‘Hyper-partisanship’ is deplorable, but partisanship is politics. What would it mean to have a ‘nonpartisan’ position on the issue with which Judge Hudson has dealt?” I ask, “If “hyper-partisanship is deplorable, then isn’t normal partisanship at least undesirable?” One can take a position on something without being partisan about it. I can say that I’m against the new health care law without demonizing Obama and those who voted for him, without being insulting, without making fun of Pelosi, without grasping at straws doubting Obama’s birth certificate, and at the same time being willing to compromise and listen. I can do this because I am more interested in my representatives doing the right thing than I am in how many seats my party has gained or lost (Officially, I don’t have a party.). Yes, partisanship is politics, and politics is power, and power corrupts. Let’s drop the rhetoric.

Mr. Will is not alone. Jonah Goldberg writes much the same things in his column. I just hope he’s only missing the point and not being partisan.


Comments are closed.

    Author

    Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.

    Archives

    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    May 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Al Gore
    Anarchy
    Animals
    Ann Coulter
    Anti-Semitism
    Approval Rate
    Barack Obama
    Bias
    Bill Clinton
    Budget Deficit
    Bush Bashing
    Bush-bashing
    Bush-Bashing
    Capitalism
    Center
    Christmas
    Civility
    Code Words
    Coffee Parties
    Collectivism
    Compromise
    Conservative
    Constitution
    Court Rulings
    Culture
    Debate
    Democrats
    Dick Cheney
    Discrimination
    Donald Trump
    Drew Weston
    Economy
    Education
    Environment
    Eric Holder
    Euthanasia
    Experience
    Flag Burning
    France
    George W Bush
    Glenn Beck
    Global Warming
    Health Care
    Hillary Clinton
    Historical Narrative
    Holiday
    Homosexual
    Huffington Post
    Humor
    Hypocrisy
    Immigration
    Independent
    Insult
    Insurance
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jared Loughner
    Jimmy Buffet
    John Kerry
    John Mccain
    Jon Stewart
    Joseph Stark
    Journalism
    Judith Curry
    Julian Assange
    Koran
    Liberal
    Libya
    Marginalization
    Marketing
    Marriage
    Media
    Memes
    Mike Huckabee
    Military
    Mit Romney
    Monopoly
    National Debt
    Occupy Wall Street
    Osama Bin Laden
    Partisanship
    Political Spectrum
    Pragmatism
    Prejudice
    Privacy
    Psychology
    Rachel Maddow
    Racism
    Recession
    Religion
    Republicans
    Rights
    Rush Limbaugh
    Sarah Palin
    Sean Hannity
    Semantics
    Sex
    Sexism
    Socialism
    Sources
    State Rights
    State Secrets
    Stephen Colbert
    Suicide
    Taxes
    Tea Parties
    Term Limits
    Theory
    Tom Tancredo
    Torture
    Unions
    Van Jones
    Wikileaks

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly