Why Have a Fair Argument When a Label Will Do?

By TRB

I was lucky; I was brought up by someone familiar with the art of argument. My father was a political junkie and a newspaper man, so usually he knew all sides of any given issue and was always prepared to defend or attack any argument put to him. But he was never mean. He dealt in facts, not opinions or false claims of patriotism. He was conservative in his views, which would make him a "liberal" by todays standards. Although I doubt he could tolerate being a liberal.

That is the problem with labels in politics. Politics, like language evolves and labels can only be temporary. A good case in point is the late Pres. Richard Nixon. Nixon saw it as his duty to help America's poor. Barack Obama is actually to the right of Richard Nixon on this issue today.

This evolution of political thought occurs through various means. Lobbyists have some play in it. The individual voter is involved to a degree. And mass media certainly helps to form opinions and create new opinions. Sometimes a single author can alter political thought with just one idea. This occured in the U.S. when the late Sen. Paul Tsongas wrote a leaflet with political ideas that created a political movement in the 1970s called "neo-liberalism." This new liberalism wasn't really liberalism at all. But the mark of a good politician/writer is to make you believe something that isn't necessarily true

In his leaflet and in his speeches Tsongas, a Democrat from Lowell, maintained that Democrats and liberals, should, following in the steps of the Republicans, develop closer ties with corporations and stop being so fussy about regulations. In other words, the Democrats should become more Republican. One man, the Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton agreed. He ran against Tsongas in a Presidential Primary, but he later admitted that he and many members of the Democratic leadership were in line with so-called neo-liberalism. This led to the label "Republicrat," the marriage of the two parties and the belief by many that one was the same as the other.

Many Americans believe that Republican politics, fueled by a disorted view of social issues, has swung rapidly to the right and is no longer simply "conservative," but perhaps even fascist, in its view of life in America. But we are back to labels with this kind of thought, and no further in understanding the nature of political change in this country. One could say that, like most other countries, political change is driven by economic forces, which themselves are controlled by political interests.

This would seem to be the case as most of the world's nations limp into the 21st Century. China seems to be gaining ground as new technologies make it easier and less expensive for China to extract its natural resources. It has also gained power and influence by signing various trade treaties that work to its advantage. Some nations, however, most notably, the U.S., have complained that China is in violation of its trade treaty and the U.S. wishes to re-negotiate. Other nations are in the same boat.

Meanwhile, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, nations in South America, Mexico are having similar economic problems. The reasons might be different, but the symptoms are the same. Chief among them is unemployment, costs of medical care, housing costs, the rise in fuel prices, and in some nations, the shortage of drinking water. All the nations of this earth, and eventually China, will have drinking water problems if global warming continues.

But for now, you could call me an "isolationist" when it comes to the problems in my own country. Why could you do this? Simple, because this is where I live.

Yesterday, the Fourth of July, was a banner day for political arguments and drunkeness. I was even called an "American Exceptionalist" by someone who is not familiar with Left Wing politics. Of all the arguments, however, my favorite, as far as labels go, is the doozy that exists between American liberals and those calling themselves "progressives." It was not long ago that a progressive might be someone in the Left Wing camp but that has apparently changed. The evolution of politics again.

There are Republican Progressives in the neighborhood now. Yes, I was amazed. I argued that the Republican Party platform and their strange allies, the Tea Party would seem to rule out the existence of any true "progressives" among their ranks. But these Republican Progressives are of a different stripe. They hate the Tea Party, they are sick of the various so-called "family value" issues of the Republican party. And they believe their party has been hijacked by extremists. Also, and most important, they want it back

Progressives today, from either party are people who just want to go forward, stop the arguing, fix what can be fixed and get on with it. In a way they are the Republicans from the 1970s. Meanwhile, the liberals seem to specialize in stubborness. First they want to choose only the issues they can win. As usual, liberals can't do the heavy lifting. Perhaps they will hire someone for that.

Their near abandonment of the public unions is proof that the liberals never had the backbone to stand for anything. They have always been like one of those meetings you attend in academia where the department head wants to discuss the upcoming schedule of meetings. Strange, but you will discover many self-described "intellectuals" among their ranks.

I once made the mistake of refering to Noam Chomsky as an intellectual - right to his face. He denied being one. Then he told me why. Intellectuals are usually very well educated. Our education system is one of indoctrination.Therefore intellectuals, whether they actually know it or not, have been very thoroughly indoctrinated into our system. Chomsky, on the other hand, can see the indoctrination and has done his best to filter it out. Like my Dad, Noam is not someone you want to go up against in an argument. especially if you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It is better to choose a building and jump from it.

So the progressive is a quickly evolving creature that can be found in both major political parties. Some say the progressive is taking the place of the so-called Independent. I believe this to be true. So "progressive," in this case, might just be another word for something that already exists.

It is difficult still for some people to describe what their label might be in this political system. Being pro-union, anti-military, and a share-the-wealth kind of person, I am often called a leftist. But I don't know if that is right. Seems more to me that I just make up my mind about something when I believe I have gathered enough facts. And that half the time, I am wrong.

More Americans, and not just intellectual elitists are using a type of "critical analysis" to inform their decisions about everything from trash disposal to what they eat. This is a very Chomsky way of doing things. Put simply, weigh the pros and the cons, use common sense, consider as many of the implications as possible, make the decision.

Too often we have a tendency towards impulse. This has led to many problems, even wars over the centuries. Labels are a product of impulse too, except when someone steps forward and says to you, "Hello, my name is James I am a progressive with conservative tendencies. Someone said that to me yesterday. Someone drunk. I answered, "Does that mean you progress but only at a conservative rate?" He tipped his hat to me. I had answered correctly and on the first try.

I really can't tell you what the man was. Just spitting out labels spontaneously before you even really know someone is simplistic and reserved for the simple minded. Nearly everyone, has a more complicated view of the world than we initially believe they do. So, in a sense, labels are worse than misleading. They are an attempt to sum up someone's ideas using one word. In other words, to belittle someone's ideas.

What I have discovered is that I have a tendency to do that as well, with the difference that I spend a paragraph or two, or sometimes an entire article explaining how and why I have reached that conclusion. There is also the person who has defined himself and wants to be labeled. In fact, he or she is proud of whichever label they carry. This phenomenon can be seen on both the right and the left.

To me it is a little bit like when my son was 12 years old and told me he was an anachist.

"Excellent,"I replied. "Good choice."