0698 - Labels

A common feature of political ranting, found everywhere in the world, is the over-use of loudly applied labels stuck to the opposition. A most curious feature of this labeling, noted by our acute Chief Proofreader, is that the labels usually are not just meaningless, but in fact counter-factual, a polite word for false. A quite obvious example from current U.S. White House labeling is that anyone who wants to get out of Iraq "Doesn't support the troops". Now, think about this label: those who want the troops out of Iraq don't want 100 or so of them killed every month, and another thousand a month wounded. [Note: this sort of political discourse pays no attention to the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, or to the four million displaced.] Well now, logically, isn't it supportive of the troops well-being to want them out of harm's way, as the saying goes? Is sending soldiers to be killed off "support"?

Please note that we are not discussing whether it is or is not good foreign policy to stay or depart Iraq, just whether saying it "supports" troops to keep them being killed. Similarly, we have often inveighed against the labels of "Liberal"or "Conservative". Take the words for what they literally mean, and it is a good thing both to be liberal and to be conservative. It is not a good thing to sneak in un-debated appropriations, as both the GOPs and the Dems do, for useless trolley car museums and spinach subsidies, or bridges to nowhere, not to mention such long standing thefts from the public purse as the U.S. sugar program. Such cheating is neither Liberal nor Conservative, it's cheap-jack petty theft. If you don't like such carrying on, you will be accused of not "supporting" spinach.

Washington is currently all steamed up about a new Immigration Policy, where the opponents of the rather messy compromise use the label "amnesty" all the time. This does not advance the discussion either in DC or the similar discussion in Anguilla, where feelings about non-Belongers coming to work run just as high. The same kind of labeling is used by those who don't like the idea of letting in highly educated immigrants at the head of the line – a sort of know-nothing policy the left doesn't like. This would have kept out Einstein, all right.

The very peak of political labeling is running against "Washington" or "Big Government" or "Big Business". Those who run against "Washington" always change their spots if elected – current or past examples on request. Of course, there is also much labeling over the doing of business. In the U.S., Wal-Mart is savaged for running big stores that sell stuff cheap. Wouldn't we love a Wal-Mart in Anguilla? Of course the big sellers of cheap things hurt the small stores that sell the same stuff at higher prices. But "Small Business" is a good label, and supporting small biz is always good for a vote, whether or not the small biz is in fact either efficient, or gives good service, or for that matter pays decent wages.

Let's not talk about the common use of labels to send racist, sexist, or group-contemptuous signals. That old foop Don Imus has departed radio in the States for overdoing what more sophisticated politicians do every day. Worth noting, though, is the popular attack term "flip-flopper". This means that an opponent has changed position. It also is often used to mean that the opponent has actually thought about a complicated problem – and thinking, as Readers know, is never a political plus. What we would like to see is applause for those who have been right about past decisions. The current policy is either to be obdurately stubborn (the W position) or to wring the hands and say "I made a mistake." Better would be to say, as Obama can, that he was completely right about the Iraq fiasco, and for the right reasons. How's that?

Next time: Kevorkian [OO #699]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home