Dan Kervick's picture

    More Labels

    Many of you have probably heard already about the launch of the new No Labels organization – the new centrist organization that is bending over backwards to label itself as a not-necessarily-centrist organization with “no label”.  Their goal of promoting constructive civil discourse is laudable – that’s something we need more of across the political spectrum.   But the organization’s putative non-platform platform is conventional centrist stuff: smaller deficits, free trade, free markets, and social tolerance.  It just seems like a classic European-style Liberal party to me, for example, the UK Lib-Dems, or the German Free Democratic Party - or the US Democratic Party shorn of its base, but with unaffiliated voters thrown in.   I think I have seen this act before.  It was called the “Third Way” or the “DLC”.  Indeed, DLC leading light Evan Bayh is one of the more prominent members.  (I have to confess, the very fact that Evan Bayh is a member of some organization is reason enough for me to want nothing to do with it.)  Also, Third Way co-founder Jim Kessler is one of the “citizen leaders” of the new organization.

    These reflections aside, I would like to suggest that the fundamental rhetorical conceit of this organization – the “no labels” attitude – is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  This is the same misguided, non-committal, milquetoast “post-partisanship” that is turning the Obama administration into a rapidly shrinking coalition without a passionate and motivated constituency.

    My contention is that America needs more labels in its political discourse and political organizations, not fewer.   One reason our political discourse is so dumbed-down, so confused and so erratic is that our political and media cultures have abdicated the responsibility of providing clear names and labels for things.    The labels that do exist - “Democrat” and “Republican” ; “conservative”, “liberal” and “progressive” - are far too crude to reflect the many very real and very significant philosophical differences among  Americans.  Since the labels our politicians do embrace are so meaningless, these politicians are allowed to hide behind walls of euphemism and semantic misdirection, and undergo rapid chameleon-like shifts in public with barely anyone noticing in more than a confused, sub-articulate way.  And professional political operatives are paid to manufacture the illusion that the electoral machines they operate represent coherent philosophical positions, when in fact they are just money-raising enterprises that produce election victories for their client-members.   The result of this structural vapidity is a meaningless and directionless political sea of unclarity, marked by only the temporary eddies and whorls of the passions of the month or the week.  There is nothing to get behind with conviction; no coherent and disciplined long-term strategy to pursue; no consistent leaders to follow who direct anything that deserves to be called a movement.  It flows everywhere and goes nowhere.  The best its adherents can pretend is that its circular march towards sameness, and ostrich-like avoidance of the acute moral and structural crises of our era, represents “pragmatism” or “common sense”.

    It is probably unrealistic even to hope that we could ever break the legally institutionalized deadlock grip of the two-party system in the United States.  But it would be interesting to see if we could spark and adopt an informal and voluntary “More Labels” system in which people were encouraged to form sub-parties or organizations that affiliate themselves officially with major parties, and acquire publicity for clearly understood and unambiguous labels.  Politicians – and ordinary folk – should be encouraged to adopt these more descriptive labels when participating in political discourse, and media organizations could be encouraged to give both the partisan and sub-partisan labels when identifying politicians.  That way, voters will have a much clearer notion of precisely which coalitions are represented within the major parties, and to what degrees those coalitions are represented.  And these sub-parties could organize themselves and act as units that officially re-affiliate themselves if they don’t receive satisfaction within their own parties.  The frustrations of two-party politics would still remain, but it would at least become easier to determine precisely which constituencies inside a party are or are not satisfied, and we could get more coherent and focused policy advocacy.

    Individuals who are then still unable to declare themselves, even when the labels have become more accurate, descriptive and precise, would rightly be suspected of being muddle-headed, vacillating, obdurately non-committal, duplicitous or irresolute.  (Like the dubious and conflicted cipher, Mr. Bayh.)

    I have been thinking about my own label.  I am still not settled on one, but I have been kicking around several, including the following:

    Dan Kervick- Uptight New England Prig (D)

    Dan Kervick- Egalitarian Social Contractarian (D)

    Dan Kervick – Left Social Communitarian (D)

    Dan Kervick – Fed Up with Rich People (D)

    Dan Kervick – No Apologies Redistributionist (D)

    I’m still working on it.  But seriously, I would encourage everyone to adopt a very accurate and informative political label, after careful and reflective consideration, and then stick it on and stick to it.

    Now you may be thinking to yourself, “I am not a label!  I am a human being!”  Or maybe you’re thinking, “I’m won’t be anyone’s stereotype!  You can’t define me!  You can’t pluck out the heart of my mystery, etc. etc.  etc.”   Well, little miss we’re-all-infinitely-special-snowflakes-absolutely-unique-in the-eyes-of-God … get over it.  You’re not so special.  Pick a side and get on it.

    It would be even better if politicians came with ingredients labels - like food.  For example:

    Representative Joe Plumbowsky -

    • 20% pharmaceutical company lackey
    • 15% unresolved abandonment anxiety
    • 30% pathetic womanizer
    • 10% had a good idea about something once, but forgot it
    • 10% hates sweaty and fat people
    • 15% open to the highest bidder

    Seriously, few of us would argue that what we need when buying food is fewer labels and less informative labels.  So why in the world would we want politicians with “no labels”?

    Comments

    Well, we've got: Moderate Democrats Conservative Democrats Liberal Democrats REALLY LEFTIST Liberal Democrats Green Party And we've got: Moderate Republicans Conservative Republicans REALLY RIGHTWING Conservative Republicans Tea Party Then there's: Moderate Independents Conservative Independents Libertarian Independents REALLY LIBERTARIAN Independents Libertarian Party But what we DON'T have is: No BLUE States, No RED States, but the UNITED STATES So, sure, add more labels to the Un-United States. Ballots could get really fun by 2012, LOL.

    No Labels....hum.....can you say Cop Out ? I knew you could boys and girls.


    The Charlie Brown Party.


    Ha, I love the comment that Mitsubishe left at that youtube link!


    Seems to me the trouble isn't the labels we put on ourselves, it's the negative labels our opponents use to define us and how much they can convince 'Joe Public' that their label has more validity than our label 

    What good is defining yourself as a Centrist if the opposing team spends 100 million dollars defining Centrist in a perjorative way?  

    Any way you look at it, labels are only as good as the public's ability to ascertain the truth or the falseness of that label.  


    Well said, and a good argument towards dropping labels, although that defeats the author's point.

     


    I do like the Ingredients label idea, though.  In the best case scenario, instead of fat-free, politicians would wear labels saying Corporate Influence-Free.


    Truth in advertising for politicians. Like the list of ingredients on the side of a box of cookies. Of course if you actually read it, you would not buy it and certainly wouldn't consume it.


    There's an old Fred Allen line that goes; "If all the politicians in the world were laid end to end, they would still be lying."


    Yes. But at least somebody'd  be getting laid.


    The real shame is before the GOPer Contract on America, both Democrats and Republicans caroused with one another and their families including dinner invitations as well as holiday outingss and celebrations, and so forth...just like the rest of us. However, once the contract was delivered, anyone who stepped over-the-line was castigated by the Party elites. Hence our current political strife. A good example of how far they've moved from bipartisanship is the current Financial Crisis Panel where the GOPer's are issuing their own root causes of the financial crisis plan bypassing the bipartisan panel. Seems they preferred to place the blame for the meltdown entirely on the shoulders of the government and paint the financial powers as innocent victims of governmental excesses. Remember, government is always the problem and never the solution regardless of the facts.  So I think the No Label fad will die off very soon because it doesn't address the root cause of the political disconnect in Washington and the Nation.


    Enjoyed your post, Dan K. Here's a question that comes to mind.

    If President Obama were to switch parties, and sport the Republican label, how many Dems would follow his lead? If he were to do it now, and really kick off his 2012 campaign, could he get enough cross-over votes to win the primary?

    Not sure why that question popped into my head. Right now I put about as much stock in party brands as I do cereal labels.  


    Hi Watt,

    If Obama actually switched to the Republican Party, I do think a great many Republicans would drop their hysterical Obama-hatred overnight and enthusiastically glom onto him.  But I don't think he would do that.  He's so "above" partisanship, you see, and wouldn't relish being the leader of the Republicans any more than he relishes being the leader of Democrats.

    My guess is that he would desperately like to be part of this No Labels group, since it is so in line with his purple America, post-partisan stuff.  I think he finds it an annoying burden to be the nominal leader of the Democratic Party, and is tired of putting up with progressives and their challenging demands and non-conventional ideas about changing the country.  If anything, I think a more realitic scenario is that Obama would run in 2012 as an independent or third party candidate to recapture independents and triangulate a successful wedge between the two parties.


    Dan, I think you nailed it.


    Generic We Can Believe In!


    Here are a few I am considering:

    AD: People First.  Really. (D)
    AD: Anti-Market Totalitarian (D)
    AD: Bold, Persistent Experimentation, All-I-Want-for-Christmas-is-Another FDR (D) 
    AD: Modern-day, pro real middle-class, pro-civil rights, pro just the facts ma'am, anti-demagoguery, egalitarian, full employment economic populist
    AD: Anti-Phony, Unpragmatic, Deal-for-the-sake-of-deal "Bipartisanship" (D)
    AD: Remember What Your Mother Tried to Teach You About Sharing (D)
    AD: Anti-Bastardized Pragmatism (D)
    AD: Anti Low-Life, Need-to-Get-a-Life Haters (D)
    AD: Pro Rich People For Social Responsibility (D)
    AD: Anti-Pretending We Have Answers to the Rest of the World's Problems When We Don't Have Answers To Our Own (D)
    AD: Anti Randian Glorifier of Selfishness (D)
    AD: Pro Stronger Federal Government, Stronger Social Movement Broad-Thinking Unions, Stronger Social Movements, Countervailing Excessive Corporate Power So We Can Get Some Halfway Decent Public Policy in This Country For a Change (D) [that one really sings, doesn't it?]
    AD: Anti-Lazy, Uninformed But Hyper-Critical Citizenry (D)
     

    Hey, Dreamer. Good list. I'll take 50% of the Anti-Low Life label and split the balance between Pro Rich and Anti-pretending.


    QE: I didn't fart. Did YOU fart? I think you did. He who smelt it. Oh YES you did. Did so. Smelt it first. Oh go away.


    Awesome, Dan.  And just what we need.  More transparency.  These No Label folks are merely trying to make the unconvincing argument that they're somehow above it all.  Really?  Joe Lieberman is above it all?  Evan Bayh is above it all?  These people are happily partisan when the party serves their interests.  As Lieberman proved, they find their "independence" only when their party does something that doesn't serve them.

    Of course, if they were truly above it all they'd be advocating policies that are not already part of the mainstream discourse.  If they can't do that then what has their independence gotten them?  It certainly hasn't led them to original thoughts.

    Oh and I know this is a minor part of your post but I was really struck by the No Label label "Citizen Leader."  I suppose this is to connote that Kessler, whatever else we might think of him, is an interested and engaged politico who has never been elected to office.  So he's a "Citizen Leader."  But what are the rest of them?  Does having held elected office make you something other than a citizen?  In that case, I suppose the birthers have a point!


    "Govern; but don't overgovern."  There are a couple more videos, but this was the most soporific of the three.

    One thing that I find interesting is that some of us here are now considered the 'radical left'.  Wow, how things have changed (ratchet, ratchet...)

    http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/12/14/No-Labels.aspx   (sorry; I'd forgotten the link)


    In theory, the "more labels" approach is exactly what the tea party was able to accomplish, helping people have greater clarity about the make-up of the coalition.  The tea partiers were able organize themselves (and at times be organized by the powers to be) and then act as units that could officially re-affiliate themselves if they didn't receive satisfaction within their own parties.  We did see them struggle with what to do when their candidate didn't win the primary - do we now support the other candidate from the coalition (namely, in this case the "establishment Republican).  Moreover, as they discovered in Alaska, one sub-party may win the primary battle, only to discover a number of the party people leave to follow another candidate into "independent land."

    Today the Democratic Party is as much as a coalition as it ever has been, the politicians and the citizens stretch the long spectrum from conservative to liberal.  It would seem that the achievement of the majority in Congress could only have been accomplished in this way. The Republicans have their own coalition, but the spectrum is more narrowly defined.  Moreover, the conflicts they do seem to have (as in the libertarian resisting the social conservatives' call for a more intrustive government) pale in their antipathy for the other side.  The Republican coalition collectively sees it far more important to defeat the Democratic coalition, and thus is able to put aside its differences for the sake of beating the common enemy. 

    In the Democratic coalition, individual members seem to be as likely to see members of their own coalition as the enemy as they are someone from the other coalition. 

    The reality may be that if the Democratic coalition actually started forming their sub-parties, the conservative party might discover it is more beneficial to link with Republican coalition.  At this time, I don't see any of the potential sub-parties of the Republican coalition discovering something similar about joining the Democratic coalition.

    But as this points out is that the "Democrats" never had a real strong majority in the Senate. I had always hated this talk about the Dems having a super majority or close to it.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  In attempting to push through a liberal agenda, one discovers that the simple majority wasn't even there. 

    So the issue liberal people are struggling with now is just how inclusive should our coalition become.  And to what extent is it important to remain loyal to the coalition, even when one is getting the shortest straw amongst the various sub-parties.  Case in point: Obama is still the leader of the Democratic coalition.  For those who are on the more lefty edges of this coalition, one decide whether to stay or go.  Like a tea partier or even a libertarian, joining the "other coalition" is out of the question.  To go means to live on the outskirts of political power that runs through the two parties.

    As one looks to the labels as the identifier, the question will always remain: who will you caucus with?  Does a Fed Up With Rich People Dem accept into the fold someone who supports arms sales to other countries? Does an Egalitarian Social Contractarian Dem find it unacceptable to work with a pro-lifer?


    I always liked Albert Brooks. Most of the time he never looks like he is acting, he makes it seem like he is making it up as he goes along.

    I just discovered that he was born Albert Einstein. Can you imagine? His folks decided to name him Albert?

    How in the hell did he get through the fourth grade?

    And how many thousands have asked him how he did in 8th grade math?

    Labels can mean a lot.

    I mean, just look at the Fockers.


    Read your post.  Moved on in my reader eventually reaching  Walter Russell Mead's Can the L-word be Saved? advocating reclamation of the words Liberal and Progressive as quintessential descriptions of America.  It begins:

    Politically speaking, America may be the most confused country in the world.  Millions of people in this country are conservatives and even reactionaries who think they are liberals; we have millions more liberals and radicals who call themselves conservative.

    It is an unholy mess and it needs to be cleared up.  It’s time for a language intervention.

    Despite the mess so many “liberals” have made of this great political tradition, liberal and progressive are two of the noblest and most important words in the dictionary.  They describe essential qualities of the American mind and essential values in American politics.

    I put a link to his blog post in the news links but here it is again:

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/

    Russell the historian provides some interesting history.  Worth reading and it seems to tie in with your line of thinking. 


    Latest Comments