Political spectrum labels (and the need to avoid using them when "talking politics")

[pat_k]

I've come to the conclusion that we need to avoid political spectrum labels when we "talk politics." The labels Left, Progressive, Liberal, Democratic, Right, Conservative, and Republican are loaded with meanings that go way beyond basic philosophy. Essentially, when people hear a label they identify with they think "goodness" or "good guys." When they hear a label that applies to the "other side," they think "badness" or "bad guys."

When we excoriate Republicans, we are excoriating people who share many of the goals we have for this country. Some would agree with our proposals for how to achieve those goals if they allowed themselves to actually hear them.

The minute a person, goal, or proposed course of action is defined as “belonging to” people on one side of the political spectrum, it’s more difficult to engage people who identify with the “other side.” (Why would you listen to what the "bad guys" have to say?)

Sure, this is "Democratic" Underground, and members support the Democratic Party. We label ourselves by our membership. Nevertheless, I think we need to start noticing how we use political spectrum labels to generalize in unproductive ways. I think we need to figure out how to drop those labels whenever possible.

Instead of using political spectrum labels, we should get specific about the goals and proposals we advocate. When we attack bad proposals, we'll have a better shot at being heard by more people if we describe the proposal, and get specific about what's wrong with it. You might be surprised to find that some of those "bad guys" are 100% "on board" with you when you drop the labels and get concrete.

Recently, I've been re-visiting George Lakoff's ideas about putting things into "frames" that are more likely to "get through." Job #1 is to extract "good guy" ideas from the frames created by spectrum labels. As I work to define "good guy" goals, and evaluate various proposals for achieving those goals, I'm clarifying my own thinking. It's a lot harder than talking in more general "progressive values" terms. If our goal is to persuade as many of "them" to join "us" as possible, we need to make some changes. A "drop labels and get specific" approach may not be the best, but I think it has serious potential.

A few thoughts on labeling in re: Sanders (Independent) v. Sanders (Democratic caucus member)

On the subject of labeling, there are some here who denigrate Sanders, "the Independent," for caucusing with Democrats and running for the Democratic nomination. (Perhaps it's just a few, but they appear to be out in force today)

Denouncing Sanders because of a label ("not a Democrat&quot is an expression of the sort of prejudice I think we "good guys" shouldn't be engaging in. It also generates a whole lot of vague, unproductive back and forth that often descends into members attacking each other personally.

I could be wrong, but I think most people here would put most of Sanders' proposals in the "good" bucket. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him "one of us good guys."

If you think his proposals are destructive, "bad" proposals, banish him to your "bad guys" bucket in your head. But when you post, please try to be specific. Describe what you think is terrible about his proposals; talk about how those proposals are at odds with your "good guy" goals and proposals. If he says something you think is asinine, quote what he said and describe why you think it's asinine. (Same goes for any asinine things other "good guys" say.)

[Squinch]

1. OK, but he has to stop badmouthing Democratic efforts, and has to

stop saying things like "we need to appeal to the working class."

It's bullshit, and it is divisive, and does exactly what your OP is saying should NOT be done. And I agree with that in your OP.

[pat_k]

2. Yes, his "appeal to working class" talking point is seriously counterproductive...

... as I posted a while ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028714234#post11

[leftstreet]

3. DURec

Good post

I'm so old I can remember a life free of ridiculous labels like 'progressive' or 'far left'

[pat_k]

4. I don't know the extent to which it was related...

... but the "divide" seemed to start getting a lot wider when CSPAN put D's and R's after everybody's name in the early '80s.

Then - I think it was a few years after they went on the air -- CSPAN set up two lines for their call-in shows for Dem/Rep, or Supporter/Opponent (if specific issue). There might be only five R's and fifty D's waiting, but they'd go back and forth to give "equal time" (and often just "wrapped things up" when they ran out of callers on one of the lines). It was pretty clear at the time that they were responding to accusations of bias from the emerging right-wing "talk radio" audience (fewer rw callers because there were fewer rw CSPAN viewers, and the ones who did watch appeared to me to be pretty extreme). Totally uncontroversial topics started appearing controversial because there were "equal numbers" of people on "both sides."

By the late 80's talk radio really took off ... and then FAUX News in the mid-90's...

And so it went. Less and less analysis or evaluating against reality, more and more so-called journalists "balancing" and being "objective" by simply transcribing what people on "each side" said.

And so it goes.

We can only hope that things have gotten so extreme that journalists will start doing their jobs again, and do a better job of evaluating statements against reality. They are calling out lies so blatant it's undeniable, but they are still doing a piss poor job of providing any context for the "he said; she said" crap they call "political reporting."

[leftstreet]

5. omg

throwback memory!



You're absolutely right. I'd forgotten all about the call-ins before they decided to make it look like 'equal' representation

I hope you're right that journalists will start responding to what's happening

(I also hope you'll consider an OP about NOT saying Trump has done nothing. He's done worse than nothing. You posted earlier on it, but weekends are dead ends online and things drop.)