Bill Mahar on Friday

[NanceGreggs]

18. Saw the segment ...

... and totally disagree with his analysis/conclusion.

A politician identifying himself by a "label" appeals to voters who tend not to look beyond it. Saying "I'm a conservative" translates as "if you're also a conservative, we are the same - so it is obvious you should vote for me."

It only speaks to the "label" - it does not address issues or policies, but encourages the voter not to feel a need to look into those things any further. The message is simply "vote for me because I wear a label you identify with - so details about my political position are basically irrelevant."

This works well with Republican voters, who tend to be ill-informed and not terribly interested in anything beyond what label a politician wears.

Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters tend to be better-informed and far more interested in the details. They want to know who a candidate really is, what they stand for, what their past record is - and, in particular, what their agenda will be once elected.

Saying "I'm a liberal" just doesn't cut it for voters who recognize who a liberal is by what they actually DO, and not by a label they affix to themselves - especially one that sounds more like a simple-minded bumper-sticker than a substantive resume of ideas and ideals.

It's not unlike politicians who label themselves as "good Christians". If you really ARE a good Christian, you don't have to advertise it - your actions will speak for themselves.

For Republican voters, the "I'm a Conservative" label is the same as "One size fits all".