Truth in (political) Labeling

Today I attended the second local organizing meeting of a burgeoning effort called the Coffee Party Movement, which has as its primary stated objective. "Giving (sic) voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government." And yet, with all the vitriol, yelling and name calling going on from the nation's capital to the local courthouse, I believe this daunting task nearly impossible in the current environment. This situation is made worse by the meaningless labels of "Republican" or "Democrat," which are only slightly less confusing than "independent" or "conservative" or "progressive, or "liberal," or...

In seeking advice in preparation for this post, a friend quoted Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard to me: “Once you label me, you negate me.” I don't agree with this sentiment on several levels, with the main one being that we can only negate ourselves. But certainly, labeling is a tactic that antagonists use to try to diminish or negate their opponents, and labels are certainly rife in today's political shouting match. Worse yet, many, if not most of us, adopt various labels with no idea what many of them mean, or with whom we might be aligning ourselves by virtue of donning this or that "uniform."

I am not a fan of labeling, but am a big proponent of both self-knowledge and intelligent discourse. For that reason, I think it is very beneficial to try and understand the true meaning of certain labels, and which, if any, might reasonably apply to us. Only when we have a good understanding of where we stand personally on any axis, and have an objective means by which to locate others, can we accurately understand our relationship at the outset, and formulate our communications and interactions in a way that might have a meaningful impact. Assuming that we're not speaking just to thrill at the sound of our own voices...

In the course of a professional development training recently, I was exposed to a book titled The Platinum Rule, by a well known business communications professional named Tony Alessandra. While I'm not a fan of these self-help, sales-excellence books or gurus, this one had a fascinating slant that I found quite compelling. The premise, if it is not self-evident, is a play on "the golden rule," which we all knows directs us to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. Alessandra suggests that, while laudable, this is an ego driven construct, as it rests on the assumption that the other is like us, or wants what we want. His "Platinum Rule" suggests that we consider not "as we would want to be treated," but as he or she would want to be treated. Not the same thing, in many cases, by a long shot. So...

Alessandra, being a PhD., highly compensated author, motivational speaker, marketing consultant, and generally big-time mucky muck, developed a cute personality quiz which will land you, unless you're some sort of freak, in one of four quadrants, assign to you primary and secondary characteristics, and then direct you on how to most effectively interact with others who fall in various spots on the grid. From work we've done within our small group, I would rate it in the high-80th percentile for accuracy in plotting the subject on the graph. I am way too dense to speak to how accurate his prescriptions and proscriptions are regarding recommended modes of interaction. I do know he makes damn good money doing what he does, for what that's worth...

I, on the other hand, being a regular old schmuck with no letters after my name, am only going to try to draw a virtual graph of sorts that I find useful, and hope that some of my readers might find at least mildly interesting. I am going to limit this treatment to political labels, as that is the backdrop against which so much of today's angst is played out, and where I spend admittedly way too much of my own time and energy. I would recommend that you not spend much time or effort trying to plot anyone else other than yourself on the graph. If you don't know where you are, its pretty useless to try and find value in assessing the distance from or proximity to anyone else. I have many friends and associates who claim that they cannot be labeled, but I believe this is only true of someone with no principles, beliefs, or convictions. Not wanting to be labeled? Well, that's another story entirely...

The theory here is to define polar opposites on several axes that correspond to the most commonly used and misused labels, or to those we would prefer to use. You are free to accept or dismiss my definitions, but I have tried, as possible and unless otherwise noted, to use common currently accepted definitions, recognizing that there are historical differentiations, particularly as regards liberalism. As we define each of these I set them to the side to be arranged later - will explain my personal arrangement preference and rationale shortly:

Libertarian vs. Progressive: Starting from the simplest and working our way forward, libertarians generally support the rights of the individual over the rights of government or the state, and consider government generally oppressive and largely unnecessary. Progressives, on the other hand, having arisen in the early 20th century in response to the ravages visited on the working class by industrialization and the age of the robber barons, believes that government should be strong and vibrant in protecting the rights of individuals against more powerful moneyed interests. I start with these two because in a real sense and in a purely political analysis, these two have the greatest dichotomy, are the clearest polar opposites, and in many ways are the primary agents to creating the most unbridgeable divide between our citizens. Libertarians believe in every man for himself in virtually every aspect of life, whereas progressives believe in using government to protect the weaker from the more powerful, and to do so in a very direct and heavy-handed manner, when necessary. Interestingly, very few Americans, proportionately, identify themselves as either libertarian or progressive. That's a shame in my view...

Populist vs. Corporatist: Here are a couple more labels that you don't much hear used but which I would argue are more applicable to the modern political mindset than frequency of usage would suggest. While these words have held different meanings historically, populism in its purist sense is a political philosophy favoring the primacy of the individual - with almost total focus on the working class. While officially labeled populism in the U.S. was generally considered an agrarian phenomenon, its worker-based focus should have but did not transfer to the modern U.S. economy when the workers moved from farm to factory during and following World War II. Corporatism is the philosophy that favors organizational and particularly large business interests over the individual worker, best embodied by the 1953 statement of then GM Chairman Charles Erwin Wilson, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." It was countered by President Dwight Eisenhower's prophetic speech only days before he left office in 1961, when he warned, "...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." I do wish he'd broadened his brush a bit, but we are all creatures of our times. I believe that most contemporary Americans, particularly in light of the recent catastrophic economic downturn, believe in their guts, if not in their minds, that this corporatist system is in fact the system we're living under now, where heavily moneyed business interest control the levers of political machinery. I also believe that there are few who would self label themselves corporatists, but many who should...

Secular vs. Religious: At the extremes, someone who defines themselves as totally secular in their political mindset is generally either a non-believer, or a strident adherent to Jefferson's "wall of separation" between search and state. The counterpart is the self described religiously focused voter who is totally comfortable having his or her religious beliefs dictate political activity. It is important to note that there is a growing movement among religious liberals to adopt this mindset, and, conversely, that it is dangerous for those on "the left" to assume that because someone is secular in their mindset that they will be liberal or progressive in their political activities. One need look no further than Ayn Rand and her modern day followers to recognize the validity of this observation.

Globalist vs. Nationalist: This one isn't intuitive to the average American, yet most of us have a very strong sense of where we stand on this axis, and it is one which can often serve as a bridge when the others seem hopeless. The pure globalist has very little sentiment for the nation itself - can hold respect for structure, historical accomplishments, culture, etc., but places all of the world and all of humanity at the top of the ladder, and the individual nation or citizenry at the foot. Conversely, the nationalist, which also title themselves "patriots," have a strong sense of exceptionalism - see their/our nation as superior to or apart from others, and are as often as not unwilling to emulate other cultures or systems due to this innate pride.

Liberal vs. Conservative: I leave this pair of labels until last because they are the most commonly used and abused, and certainly the most subject to manipulation and demonizing. For purposes of this discussion, we will consider these only in their fiscal implications. The economic liberal favors aggressive government spending and fiscal policy to achieve societal reforms and governmental objectives. Liberal tactics include protectionism, progressive taxation, and free government spending on education, health care and other government programs. Fiscal and economic conservatives, on the other hand, favor lower and flatter taxation, business friendly tax policies, and minimal governmental expenditures on non-essential programs. Of course in both cases the devil is in the details. For instance, conservative policies which favor larger business can be very damaging to smaller businesses, while liberal policies designed to favor individuals and small businesses over larger businesses might have the effect of driving down wages or employment.

Admittedly, this is only a very superficial gloss of descriptions and a minimal set of characteristics. There are other axes that can be developed, and some of mine are less developed than others (speaking to my personal biases in some cases and lack of deeper knowledge in others.) In any event, now that we're all worn out and our heads hurt, why did I put us through all this? I would hope the answer is fairly simple to see. Far too many of us, first of all, use a few simple labels - usually "liberal" or "conservative," or worse yet, Democrat or Republican, to pigeonhole ourselves and others, failing to consider the reality that in so doing we in fact marginalize ourselves and our understanding of them, rendering the likelihood of productive discourse nearly impossible. Life and humans are complex, no less so in the political realm than in others. If we would, in the political context, consider applying the more complex model suggested above, I believe in many cases we would find that we have many more commonalities than the current model allows. And in identifying these areas of commonality, we are recognizing an opportunity to open a respectful dialogue and humanize the individual which we are otherwise inclined to demonize and label as unworthy of our efforts.

Finally, I would encourage all to consider utilizing the model suggested above on/for yourselves, adding such other axes as you might deem valid, and arranging them like the spokes on a wheel, with the intersection being at zero and values graduating symmetrically outward. My Taoist friend Steve might well argue that the perfectly (politically) balanced participant would be all zeroes, but I'm doubtful anyone would actually strike such a result. If we listen actively and respectfully to others with whom we converse, and apply as we gain information the same model to them, we will find in most cases some axes on which we are nearer to them in our political disposition. In some instances the points will be so diametrically opposed in all areas that there is no potential point of entrance, but these cases should be rare. The ones on which we are nearest are the ones on which we might start a dialogue that allows for humanizing instead of demonizing, respect instead of disdain, comity instead of antagonism. I'm going to try it, and will let you know how it goes.

And for those who care, my model rendered me a secular populist, with moderate liberal/progressive and slightly stronger globalist leanings. And yes, just a hair left of center. Who'd have thunk it?