Labeling in Politics

     Being an active follower of and participant in the political process sometimes requires a person to spend time not only thinking about all the various issues that get discussed and policies that candidates and elected officials are influencing through legislation, but also thinking about which political labels apply to you as an individual and what those labels truly mean.

     Labels are a way of sorting things into groups that share common characteristics, and the purpose that they are supposed to serve is to simplify the process of sorting things out.  Labels can be used to sort objects, by grouping them according to different criteria depending on what you plan to do with them after they've been sorted.  You might label and sort your silverware drawer so that every time you open it hoping to find a spoon the spoons are all right there ready to be grabbed and used.  Labels can be used to sort people, grouping them according to a common characteristic depending on what you want them to do as a group.  You might arrange a family by height in order to make sure that everyone's face can be seen in the family portrait.  It usually makes sense to use labels in order to break up a task that would otherwise be overwhelming, but I'm starting to wonder whether the use of labeling in our political process is really simplifying anything at all.

     One label that I admit applies to me, especially in relation to politics, is Idealist.  I strongly believe in the fanciful notion that it is my right and my civic duty to vote for whichever candidate best represents my views and my interests because my vote contributes to that person being handed the power to influence what laws are passed that will influence the way I must behave and be treated, the type of experiences I can expect to have in different situations, and the variety and quality of public services and institutions that my tax dollars will be used to pay for.  Whether our natural resources are wisely used and preserved for my and future generations use, whether my country is at war with another, whether I am allowed the freedom to do anything that I can think up it being a good idea to do- all of these things are affected by the actions that our elected officials take while carrying out their duties in office.  It's a big deal.  The question is whether all the labels and identifiers that get thrown around during campaign seasons and throughout the course of political debates big and small really make it more likely that I, as a voter carrying out my civic duty, is being helped to make the best decision and cast my vote for a candidate who does represent my views and interests.

     Since labels are useful in sorting big things into manageable groups of small things, do they really make sense in the political process from the voter's perspective?  Just how big is the group of things we're supposed to be sorting?  If you're talking about candidates for an office the group is traditionally very small in relation to the number of voters who are being tasked with casting votes.  The group of candidates is minuscule in comparison to the larger, diverse group of people whose views and interests are supposed to be represented by the candidate who wins the election.  It could be that the labels are meant to group the issues that politicians votes will influence policy and action on.  That is a pretty large group when you consider the sheer number of things that elected officials can decide to promote or prohibit with laws and money, so it makes sense to group similar issues with labels in order to help voters decide among candidates.  Oddly enough though, the group that it seems to me the labels are really meant to sort is voters.  After all, we're the biggest group, so sorting us into nice neat little categories is extremely helpful- for the candidates and politicians.

      Labeling voters, to me, seems to do the exact opposite of what labeling is supposed to accomplish.  Rather than helping us identify a candidate who honestly believes what we believe about different issues and intends to vote and act as we would ourselves in their position, it empowers the candidates and politicians to say what they think we want to hear.  It also limits our choices because it improperly groups together candidates under labels that really have nothing to do with what they believe or intend to do about many of the things they will actually be tasked with doing if they get elected.  The worst of these labels are the ones used to identify a candidate's party affiliation.  The words- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green- don't tell us much of anything about what a candidate believes, and they really only tell us that regardless of what they say they will do the thing we can most likely count on is that they will do whatever their party leadership and platform directs them to do when an issue comes before them in the form of a bill.  Even the platforms of these parties don't give us much specific information upon which to base our decisions about whether a politician thinks the way we do and would vote and act as we would.  The platforms are somewhat specific about a few very controversial topics and extremely vague about the vast majority of things that will likely come up and require action of some sort after a politician is firmly ensconced in office.  By dealing in generalities and applying broad nonsensical labels to voters the field of candidates gets winnowed down to a choice between two or three candidates that no one can really predict the future actions of.  This leaves voters in the position of acting like hostage negotiators more than it does giving the opportunity to make an informed choice to elect someone who represents them.

     After the useless party affiliation labels come the ideological labels like Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Capitalist, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Big Government, Small Government.  These labels are still primarily applied to voters rather than the candidates we are trying to decide between.  Politicians adopt these labels and apply them to themselves as buzzwords to avoid clearly stating their positions on all the different types of decisions they might actually be responsible for making in office.  None of these labels is an accurate description of any individual's beliefs about any issue, let alone their beliefs about all the issues.  When you study what these words are generally accepted to mean before considering candidates in the context of the labels they adopt you come away with a general idea of how a candidate might lean towards acting on a wide variety of issues, but no clear understanding of what that label and those words really means to them.  Interpretation is very important, and the Merriam-Webster definition of any of these terms doesn't have a whole lot to do with what anybody actually thinks of when they hear or say them in relation to politics. Progressive literally means progressing in stages, or changing, so to call someone a Progressive just means they like changing things.  Does that mean they like changing things to make them better, or just because they have no attention span and like change for the sake of change?  The label doesn't tell you.

     There's no denying the fact that not every citizen takes their right to vote seriously and invests the amount of thought and research into choosing candidates the process deserves.  We probably won't ever get to a point where eligible voter participation comes close to 100%.  With the sheer volume of issues and agendas the percentage of voters who will see a candidate who completely mirrors their beliefs about every detail elected into office is infinitesimal.  Some people are always going to be one issue voters because we all get through life by prioritizing things in a hierarchy according to their importance to us, regardless of whether those things realistically have any importance in our daily lives or not.  Treating every voter like we're all too stupid to put serious thought and research into the decisions that we make, and cheating those of us who are ready and willing to do our share of the work to ensure the outcomes we wish to see in the arena of politics by giving us nothing more to work with than ridiculously simplified labels, has resulted in our elections and political process being nothing more than a shallow popularity contest.

     It's fine to have the Miss America contest be nothing more than a ridiculous popularity contest where the winner is judged not by the content of their character or any particular talent, skill, or intelligence.  It's okay for the crown to be awarded to the candidate who demonstrates the most charisma and likability and looks the best in a swimsuit.  It's fine because after that contest is over it doesn't really matter who the winner is, to anyone other than the winner.  Who cares if the winner really wants to see an end to world hunger, her sash does not imbue her with magical powers that will enable her to do anything about it.  The best case scenario once the lights go out and everyone goes home is that she'll spend all her prize money buying food for hungry people, but even if she did we'd all be left wondering why the contest organizers didn't just spend the money doing that themselves rather than wasting the time it took to have the contest and give her the cash to do that with.

     Politics, and the elections that make it all possible, should focus on nothing more than the popularity of the ideas candidates have and the popularity of the actions we entrust them to take.  As interesting as their backstories may be, and as much as their prior ideas and actions may be viewed as indicators of how they will perform if elected, all of those details pale in comparison to the specific details of how they really feel about all the different issues and how they claim they will vote on legislation that relates to those issues.  I believe that we're getting screwed by a lack of transparency in the elections process and in government itself. I personally want to know what these people really think- for themselves- and I want to see the proof of how they are putting their ideas into practice after they get elected.  If their ideas are not popular enough with voters, and their actions don't match their words, then no amount of money or charisma or favors and promises should be able to get them elected or keep them in office after the expiration of their terms.

     Generic feel good speeches to packed stadiums full of potential voters and attack ads aimed at discrediting opponents add no value in helping voters make their choices wisely.  Identifying the questions that voters want their candidates to answer, researching the history of all the different issues, and taking the time to develop an informed opinion before delivering a detailed cogent response to those questions is not an impossible task.  That is what candidates should be doing, and it is a much better use of their time and ours than running around all over the country shaking hands and kissing babies or shooting 30 second ad spots is. It is long past time for politicians to stop focusing their efforts on collecting the easy votes from the masses by spouting buzzwords that will sway even lazy voters and smiling for the camera.  It is time for them to start appealing to voters who think by giving us the truth about their ideas and intentions and letting the cards fall where they may.  If a majority of voter can't be drawn to support your truth then you don't deserve to be in office because you succeeded in spinning the best lie.