I would like to offer a view for consideration. People defy easy categorization. Individuals are incredibly diverse and often hold a wide-range of political views depending on the subject The space between the labels (far left -far right) is where the real work occurs. This is the area where ideas flourish unencumbered by the limitations of labels. This is an area where people assess ideas based on their merit, not their political affiliation. Expanding the area between the labels will help reverse the negative impact that those labels had on the political climate. And instead of labels limiting people.
In this society/political climate it feels as if labels are used to explain people and words and phrases like the Black vote, Rust-Belt workers, Red State/Blue State, and Millenials treat entire swaths of the population as monoliths. Treating people as a faceless mass hinders recognition of individual differences.
People are complex and dynamic. This complexity and dynamism means that social issues rarely fit neatly into political categories.
We are overtaken with the thinking ; “You’re black so you must…” “You’re Mormon, so that means you believe…” “You voted Democrat, so you are…” “You’re married to a police officer, so you think…” We are fixated with labels and placing people in corresponding cages, if you will. What of the people in the middle? The ones who can see into and overlap with those outside their cage?
Let's expand the area between the labels.
I feel this would be very hard to do on a Political forum. Most threads represented here are political in nature, and the line is well drawn via the thread title at times.
It is very hard to get across that people, in general, should not be categorized, set into a group void of the fact that people are individuals having diverse thoughts on any given subject.
It would seem to me, our society has moved apart in regard to our ideologies, and no longer really respect much of what the other side has to say in many incidences. We listen politely as a rule, and it goes in one ear and out the other. However, I agree it would be wonderful if we could converse without bias. However, I don't think it is possible at this in today's political climate.
I will share ---Here on the HP forum, I have asked over and over not to be compartmentalized. Not to be set in a category. As of yet, I am still stuck in a box and have little chance of getting out. So,
I hope some will share their views on your OP. I would find it interesting to see what other members feel about this sublect.
I appreciate your posts. Your views and values are decidedly conservative but you seem to be able to balance contrasting ideas. I may lean left or right of center on any given issue or day for that matter. I like to think I can find points of agreement with with those across the entire political spectrum. Reading and hearing views vastly different from mine helps me consider ideas from outside my "bubble" and take on different perspectives. This forum is the most respectful I've seen. I'm sure you know it can get ugly out there.
You bring up an interesting point. I can't tell if we've moved that far apart as a society or is it just that politicians and the media want us to believe that?
I do believe in the past that labels were just descriptive (Democrat / Republican) now they have highly charged connotations. Socialist, communist, lib and so on. These labels have taken on a whole new meaning — it’s not just about your base political opinions anymore, it now determines what kind of person you are. If you’re liberal, then you’re deemed as a wacko who is offended by everything and protests on the daily. If you’re conservative, then you’re categorized as a sexist or a racist who only cares about the livelihood of Americans.
Our political words are weaponized. Too many want to vilify with stigmatizing negative labels rather than seek to find a common ground which I really do believe there is plenty of. But who does that to us? How have we come to believe these things?
With the passing of Bob Dole, I heard his 1996 Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech played the other day. I was really struck by it.
"The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.
But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise."
I don't know if I can find many Republicans today who are open to " many streams of opinion and many points of view" At least that's my feeling.
But that can be said of some Democrats as well.
Either way, I feel like the country and the best interest of its citizens is getting lost in the red versus blue rivalry.
Yes, I am a conservative, a convert, I was a Democrat for the best part of my life. I am very common sense, and the party became problematic for me, due to moving to the left of the center. I do find points I can agree with across political lines.
This forum is respectful much of the time, HP's forum is very mild in comparison to some I have participated in chat. But, some do push the boundaries at times with personal insults. I always chalk it up to frustration due to opposite views colliding.
Labels can often be destructive, and it does lead to compartmentalizing and puts up a wall that makes communication. very hard.
I think the Republican party has become more diverse since Trump. We now have a few segments, all with somewhat different visions for hat path they hope to see America go down. So, in regard to Republicans not being open to many streams of opinion and many points of view. This in many ways rings true.
However, consider this --- As a Republican, I truely feel my ideologies are sound, I could give many reasons why I feel my ideologies are sound, How I personally came to have formed my opinion and came to truely believe my ideologies would be good for all American's.
Just replace the word Republican with the word Democrat.
So, do I have the right to feel my ideologies are the last word? And does a person with an opposing view have the right to feel their view is the last word? I think the best we can expect is to make an attempt to listen and respect one another and try to see where they are coming from.
I too feel the best interest of its citizens is getting lost in the red versus blue rivalry. Spurred on greatly by media, and our politicians. And one must say, they are doing a great job playing us...
The late Robert Dole represented a far more reasonable and centrist Republican Party of the past. In the world of politics, compared with today, 1996 just as well be 1896.
The only common ground is that I would like to think that we all are working toward what each of see as the best interests of the country. How that translates into policy initiatives and such between opposing viewpoints is quite evident in what it is we are seeing now.
I think there's already a movement brewing. Gallup found that significantly more U.S. adults continued to identify as political independents (42%) in 2018 than as either Democrats (30%) or Republicans (26%). At least four in 10 Americans have been political independents in seven of the past eight years.
We know that hardcore partisans' perceptions of the other party are wildly off-base -- for example, according to a study by More in Common, Democrats believe that only half of Republicans recognize that racism still exists in America while Republicans believe that only half of Democrats are proud to be American. In reality, 80% of Republicans understand that racism remains an issue in America and 80% of Democrats say they are proud to be an American.
The solution? Can we build a strong coalition between the center-left and center-right and eventually create a third party? A group that is grounded in the realities of overlapping points and ideology as well as compromise?
Some in Congress do set an example in moderation. They either get no attention or are vilified by their party. Media doesn't pick up on them because they aren't controversial enough to bring ratings.
Sharlee is right, we're being played, all of us.
"The solution? Can we build a strong coalition between the center-left and center-right and eventually create a third party? A group that is grounded in the realities of overlapping points and ideology as well as compromise?"
Perhaps, if you can find enough moderates from either side with courage to break the leash of slavish partisanism at numbers that can actually exceed the number of fingers on your hand.
If the moderate voices are silent or made ineffectual, what purpose do they serve, and how do you think that they can change the current narrative?
The only "real poll" for me Is expressed by the voters at the ballot box. People will say one thing, yet vote in a totally different direction. Many do not want to the reveal the ugly underpinnings of their actual values and beliefs with any public pollsters.
Oh lordy, lordy, I am fresh from a comment on the OP and it seems I didn't get all that `contrarianness' out.
It isn't that people should not be categorized, it is that they demand to be categorized. Look at your "box" complaint; why don't you have a chance to get out of it, (speaking of political labels)? If you fit the box then that is a correct label. A label success—proper message conveyed. And if you don't fit the box, that isn't your problem it is theirs for being wrong. A double-win for you; you get to be right, and, get the chance to correct a misunderstanding. Win-win again. (you are demanding to be categorized—you just want the right categization)
However, to be fair, I freely admit my response to both you and FayettevilleFaye are from the high-horse position of `that's how it should be', just as I perceived Faye's OP to be. I live in the same reality as both of you, I am confident I understand the intent of the OP and your example. I am just taking the shortcut to where we all agree that people who misuse labels are idiots.
In the political arena, along the entire political spectrum the boxes are too big to contain a correct label. Do most people want to be placed in a box? I don't think so other than relating to people of similar ideals. But I think you agree that being placed in the Democrat / liberal box doesn't mean you're an advocate of a universal basic income. Just as if you're in the Republican box doesn't mean you are necessarily pro-life under all circumstances.
Labels become an attempt to turn the complicated into the simple. And people and politics aren’t simple. I dare to say you already understand this. People assume political labels to associate with others presumably working towards a shared goal. But, it’s rarely that straightforward.
This is an example of how the "moderates" get set aside.
On the abortion issue, the Right wants to consider life beginning at conception, while the Left has been accused of advocating abortion on demand.
Well, Roe vs Wade was the compromise between the interests of the state in preserving life while acknowledging a woman's need to have some control over her reproductive affairs.
I fear the Republicans idea of treating a zygote as a person, thus introducing just another form of slavery for women that men do not have to contend with.
Republicans have been quick to water down Roe vs Wade, the compromise, whenever and wherever they can. They are the ones resisting the "middle of the road" compromise and, consequently, do not deserve any consideration on my part.
There is no moderate position, I will take my chances with "Abortion on Demand" rather than the alternative presented by today's Republican Party. So, in fear of Republican extremism as advocated or otherwise supported by most all of them, I am going to support the Democrats.
There are many other issues that I see in the same way.
I was reading this forum with interest, but I wasn’t going to comment because it’s more relevant to American politics than European politics; but then I read your comment:-
“In the political arena, along the entire political spectrum the boxes are too big to contain a correct label.”
Yeah, a good point, in a two party system you only have a choice of either left or right, and ‘Never the Twain Shall Meet’.
Whereas in European politics we have a multiparty system, so the ‘boxes are much smaller’ and thus it’s easier to find a box that better suits your general political beliefs. For example in the UK there are currently 11 different political parties elected to sit in the House of Commons.
That system would definitely seem to account for differences. I can't say I know too much about the Parliamentary System. Do you find that your country is as bitterly polarized and divided as ours? Do you feel as though "moderate" voices have been drown out by increasingly loud screams from extremes? I think our media here has played a role in exacerbating polarization. They can take something completely apolitical and whip it into something Americans need to "take sides" on
Biden called it the "Era of Demonization" and I tend to agree.
Support for either of our political parties is close enough for either to gain electoral advantage –almost dead even. So the competition becomes cutthroat and politics begins to feel zero-sum, where one side’s gain is inherently the other’s loss. Finding common cause – even to fight a common enemy in the coronavirus – has eluded us.
Do you find a similar political climate in the U.K.?
In answer to your questions:-
#1: “Do you find that your country is as bitterly polarized and divided as ours?”
Normally ‘No’: On most sensitive issues public opinion in Britain tends to be clear cut one way or the other; albeit it may always coincide with the policies of the Governing Party.
The one exception being Brexit, which has bitterly divided the nation 50/50 (and families), and wounds that will not heal for a generation e.g. 75% of Brits over 65 are pro Brexit, and 75% of Brits under 25 are pro EU.
#2: “Do you feel as though "moderate" voices have been drowned out by increasingly loud screams from extremes?”
‘Yes and No’: The biggest issue with the UK voting system is that unlike the rest of Europe it’s still based on the ‘first past the post system’ which tends to favour the bigger parties more. For example, in the last General Election:-
• Conservatives won 56.2% of the seats on 43.63% of the votes.
• Labour won 31.1% of the seats on 32.08% of the votes.
• Liberal Democrats won 1.7% of the seats on 11.55% of the votes, while
• SNP (Scottish National Party) won 7.4% of the seats on just 3.88% of the votes.
Since the 2nd world war, in Central Government, in practice either Labour or Conservatives win a majority of seats in a General Election, as the votes of smaller parties tend to get squeezed (tactical voting).
But in my lifetime there have now been three General Elections where the winning party did not win enough seats to form a Government on their own, and had to form a political coalition, pact or alliance with another party in order to form a Government; power sharing where a minority Party holds the ‘balance of power’ (a very powerful position to be in because if the major party doesn’t please the smaller party, then the smaller party can bring down the Government any time it wishes).
• 1977 to 1978 we had a Liberal and Labour political pact, keeping Labour in power.
• 2010 to 2015 we had a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government, and
• 2017 to 2019 we had a DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) and Conservative political pact, where just 10 DUP MPs kept the Conservatives in power.
On a positive side; even when we have a Government in power with a large majority it is closely scrutinised by ‘cross-party’ select committees made up from MPs of different political parties to reflect the proportion of votes won in the General Election. And although Governments makes policies in accordance with their ‘election manifesto’, cross-party select committees can and do have influence on the fine details of the policy making.
As an example of where a small party can have a big voice in Parliament, there is just one Green MP elected to Parliament, but whenever a cross-party select committee is formed that has anything to do with ‘green matters’ (the Environment) the Green MP is always invited to sit on the committee.
How do House of Commons Select Committees work? https://youtu.be/o_2RDuDs44c
In contrast, in Local Governments, smaller parties and Independents do much better, so their voices are louder. For example, in the Bristol Local Government (the city where I live) in the last Local Government election, the results were:-
• 24 Green Party Seats.
• 24 Labour Seats.
• 14 Conservative Seats, and
• 8 Liberal Democrat seats.
Therefore, currently Bristol City Local Government is a run jointly by the Greens and Labour Parties.
It’s not just the smaller parties that have a voice in British politics, children do as well these days:-
In 1998 the ‘Bristol Youth Council’ (a charity organisation that works to ‘empower’ young people) founded the UK Youth Parliament; an elected Parliament whereby 11 to 18 year olds are democratically elected by their peers to represent the interests of children.
In 2007 the Labour Prime Minister invited the Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons one day a year to debate and vote on their policies; one of the main policies of the Youth Parliament being to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. A policy in which they have had partial success e.g. the Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 in 2015, and the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 in 2020.
Since 2007 every UK Government (regardless to politics) has continued to allow the Youth Parliament to use the House of Commons one day a year.
• 2018, Alex McDermott MYP: Votes at 16 UKYP House of Commons Debate Speech: https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZs
#3: Reference your comment: - “I think our media here has played a role in exacerbating polarization. They can take something completely apolitical and whip it into something Americans need to "take sides" on”.
Certainly, in the UK, some of the British newspapers (which we call the ‘gutter press’) may try that, as newspapers in the UK still have ‘Freedom of the Press’, but there impact tends to be limited because what we call the ‘quality press’ (aimed at the more educated reader) tends to report more factually regardless to their politics.
Also, I think more importantly, British TV News is ‘heavily regulated’ to ensure non-biased and balanced reporting; so any overt attempt to try to polarise opinion on British TV would breach regulations and result in heavy fines.
#4: Ref comment “Support for either of our political parties is close enough for either to gain electoral advantage –almost dead even. So the competition becomes cutthroat and politics begins to feel zero-sum, where one side’s gain is inherently the other’s loss. Finding common cause – even to fight a common enemy in the coronavirus – has eluded us.
Do you find a similar political climate in the U.K.?”
The simple answer is ‘No’: In elections it’s not ‘us against them’ (Conservative against Labour) it’s both main parties trying to vie votes from the ‘middle ground’ and the smaller parties e.g. the Liberal Democrats, and Labour competing for votes from the ‘Green Party’ supporters etc.
So if any main stream political party wants any chance of winning they have to compromise to the wishes of voters who are more inclined to support other parties e.g. Conservatives and Labour including 'green issues’ in their policies because the green vote in the UK is strong.
Also, the electoral system in the UK is heavily regulated to ‘level the playing field’ for the smaller parties e.g. The Electoral Commission sets ‘strict limits’ on how much political parties can spend on election campaigns, and scrutinise the accounts afterwards; and any breaches (over spend) risks criminal prosecution, and even prison.
A politician convicted of electrical fraud and sentenced to six months prison: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Spink
The Electoral Commission also stipulates strict rules and limits on ‘political broadcasts’ so that smaller parties get equal airtime on TV as the big parties.
And to further ‘level the playing field’ the Electoral Commission has set the deposit for standing in an election at just £500 ($700) which you lose if you get less than 5% of the votes. So it means that just about anyone can, and do stand for an election in the UK.
The election of Green MP to Parliament: https://youtu.be/B-iiOsz7hwc
Another difference is that the upper chamber in the UK Parliament is the House of Lords; politicians appointed for life or hereditary peers e.g. inherited through the family line since medieval times.
Politicians in the House of Lords by Political Party:-
• 262 Conservatives, of which 47 are hereditary peers.
• 231 Independent e.g. no political alliance, of which 35 are hereditary peers.
• 169 Labour, of which 4 are hereditary peers.
• 85 Liberal Democrats, of which 3 are hereditary peers.
• 25 Bishops (20 men & 5 women)
• 5 DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) – hard right wing Northern Ireland Party, right of Conservative.
• 2 Ulster Unionist Party – Conservative Party in Northern Ireland.
• 2 Green Party
• 1 Plaid Cymru – Welsh Socialist Party
Because the politicians in the upper chamber are non-elected, under the Salisbury Convention the House of Lords cannot block any legislation passed by the House of Commons if it was Government Policy in their Election Manifesto. Anything that a Government tries to push through Parliament that was not in their election manifesto is fair game e.g. the House of Lords can block it if they so wish.
The Salisbury Convention became part of the British Constitution in 1948 when Labour, having won the General Election in 1945 with a landslide victory (the first time Labour had been in power), passed legislation in the House of Commons for the creation of the NHS (Free Healthcare for all at the point of use, to be paid for by the Government from taxes).
With the NHS being pure socialism, and with the majority of peers in the House of Lords at that time being Conservatives the House of Lords was against passing such socialist laws; but Lord Salisbury, the Leader of the House of Lords (and a Conservative Peer), reasoned with his fellow peers that, as the NHS was the policy in the election manifesto of a democratically elected Government it would be undemocratic for an unelected chamber to vote against the ‘will of the people’. His fellow peers reluctantly conceded the point and allowed the NHS to become law.
The British Constitution itself, unlike the American Constitution, is unwritten, and has its origins in the Magna Carta signed by King John (under duress) in 1215. The Magna Carta created the separation of power between the Executive, Legislature and Juridical (so that the King was not above the law) and created fundamental rights such as the ‘right to trial by jury’.
What is Magna Carta? https://youtu.be/7xo4tUMdAMw
British Politics in Play:-
Last night the Conservative Government lost an ultra-safe seat to the Liberal Democrats in a by-election; a seat which the Conservatives have held (with a safe majority) for almost 200 years – so it has sent shock waves throughout the Conservative Party, and puts Boris Johnson, the Conservative Leader (current Prime Minister), in greater threat of being dumped by the Conservatives in an effort to pick a new leader who they think will have a better chance of winning the next General Election:-
North Shropshire by-election result: Historic as the Liberal Democrats destroy a Conservative 'safe seat':- https://youtu.be/So-fPucwCHY?t=255
I understand the jest of what you mean. We do basically have two main parties, yet in reality have 225 state level ballot parties, yet not in all states. So, speaking of fitting a box there are a lot if enlightened to them and desire to be a member. Nationally there are three minor parties recognized in more than 10 states. Those are:
Libertarian Party: 35 states
Green Party: 22 states
Constitution Party: 15 states
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_politic … ted_States
Do you think there's much chance of there being a third major party forming in the USA?
I sincerely doubt it with what I have learned over the past five years.
I think you are right, a label is seldom straightforward—unless you consider a label as the outer "box" of a set of Russian Nesting Dolls. One might start with the overly-broad outer box, but there will be a fairly accurate label discovered in the process of looking deeper.For instance; one might easily fit the Conservative box, but not so easily fit the Republican box that is within the Conservative box. And so on.
That thought is behind my thought that labels are good and useful things. It is the fault of the lazy and zealous that labels can drive negative outcomes.
"In the political arena, along the entire political spectrum the boxes are too big to contain a correct label. "
I agree we are a society that has come to use descriptive shorthand, that these labels do carry as a rule clear messages. Consider, are there safe non-insulting, non-bias labels that do no harm, and then there are labeled used in a contextual way to compartmentalize and set one in a group. Negating any form of individuality. And yes, I look at it as "that is their problem". But, I think Faye was pointing out one of the biggest problems we have today that has to lead to the current political division. I must agree with your sentiment people who misuse labels are idiots. We need labels, but we need to try to take care to make every attempt to put a label in the right context when using it to get a point across. And again, even the best wordsmith can use a political label that is not meant to insult, but some individuals will take it out of context.
It is very clear I am well known for sitting atop of, let's say an American Saddlebred much of the time. It's sort of good for the soul, is it not?
There is not much we, (speakers), can do if someone takes offense where none is intended. If one uses a label that is offensive but doesn't realize it is then both sides can benefit. The user learns something, and the offended have achieved a bit of understanding. However, if the offensiveness is solely in the eyes of the offended, then that is their problem.
Labels are simply tools. If there is a problem it is with the tool user, not the tool.
I feel that the problem also lies in The weaponization of political party names as well as the fact that these labels are very general and tend to deny great individual differences of the folks we lump together.
When media or
Individuals describe a situation, quoting a point someone is trying to make, and interjecting the political affiliation of the person making the comment. It shouldn’t matter if someone is a Democrat, a Republican, an Independant, or anything else. What we should focus on is examining the point being made and assessing it on it’s own merits.
If a Republican makes a good point, and no one tells a Democrat what that other person’s affiliation is, perhaps it will have a chance of being absorbed, analyzed and considered fairly. And vice versa. But as soon as you label a person, many other people will instantly go on the defensive and basically refuse to take anything into consideration proposed by their “rival”.
We have the ability to debate topics between two people without ever classifying either one as a “liberal” or a “nazi”. The world works despite, and because of, differing opinions. And because humans are complex, and there are many ways to see the world, someone that might lean towards the left or right might have certain views that are diametrically opposed. The labels we continually want to stick to people certainly don't take this into account.
There are certainly conservative Republicans who believe the medical system should be socialized. There are liberal Democrats who voted for Trump. And throwing a political slur at someone in order to discount everything they might say is basically the same as hurling any racial, sexist or gender insult. It's also negating the reality of a wide range of views under these limiting labels.
And we should stop people from cussing too. It is hurtful to be called a bastard. My mother was married to my father, but do folks consider this? Nooooo, they just know they don't like what I say. It just ain't fair.
I think Jack Nicholson spoke to your point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0
*Sorry Faye, nothing personal, but in a political forum discussion your comment was screaming for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhp9FZz4q2Y (don't forget to sway from side to side :-O)
I'll take both! I hear that tightly held inflexible beliefs lead to high blood pressure o:-)
I think some beliefs should be "tightly held and inflexible." Partisan political beliefs aren't among them, but thanks for your concern.
Faye, have you looked in Congress lately?
With the infrastructure bill, it did not matter that it was something positive for the country and the economy, and yet, I am sure that many conservatives would take issue with this mild acknowledgement. Look how the yea and no votes were divided completely on party lines, with those Republicans that defected being subject to death threats? Democrats have two that are considered"fifth columnists" among their ranks. When have we ever experienced Congress operating in this fashion, where there is no daylight between party loyalty and the need to get beneficial legislation passed?
So where are the moderates, they certainly don't appear to have any real representation in Congress?
Those "labels" are attached to a reality; ideology, policy direction and, consequently political parties that closely adhere to one's choice.
The Black vote for example. It is no secret that the vast majority of the Black electorate prefer Democrats. There are exceptions, but not many.
I have relations in Utah, I have not known many Mormons that vote Democratic.
Yes, we are all different, but we still have our "tribes". People having common experiences that compels them see major issues from the same perspective.
There is a conservative and progressive point of view for every major issue of the day.
Congress does not set any example in moderation, do you think the people they serve are going to be any better than the example they set?
How about a contrarian view as expansion . . . I think political labels are humanly unavoidable, (I think that about all labels), and that they serve as much good service as you appear to think they do of bad service.
Labels are simply descriptive shorthand, carriers of a message. The negativity one see in labels, (or positivity), is simply an interpretation that goes both ways. The giver conveys a message by their choice of labels, and the receiver gets to interpret the label. as they understand it too mean, plus the benefit of getting position information based on the givers choice of labels. A win-win in communications.
Until, and this is where I think your thoughts enter the picture, it is accepted to be someone else's job to control personal behavior. Of course, careers can be ruined and folks, (or anything), can get `canceled', by the application of a label, but I don't think there can ever be enough laws to control the human `join the crowd' or the dozens of other things we do for affirmation, instinct. There are a lot of very smart and intelligent people in this world, but as a mass we are idiots.
However, and just as a good-natured poke, I bet there are plenty of compatriots' souls around the campfire that will be glad to pipe in and bemoan the unnecessariness of it all with you.
Like GA said labels are both positive and negative and it is a kinda' of a shorthand. Some we hate and some we wear with pride. Let's face it we are given a label the first time mom says, "Your a kid (I hated being that) and I am the adult (I like being that)". We even use that as an admonishment; "You're being childish" or "Be an adult".
When I took sociology I learned it goes something like this.
Label → bias → stereo type → prejudice → discrimination (Again both good and bad stuff attached)
The problem/challenge is with what the label means to our selves vs. another vs some kind of definition making it official. For instance I am an independent today. But, that seems to need further definition being left/right leaning or befuddled. Yet, I have conservative views and liberal views on different aspects of politic/social issues. More of polygon than a box.
I say, that for the most part, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is not a polar bear, regardless of how much it wants to say otherwise.
i am trying to see any virtue in this non descript approach to people's views and attitudes and not assign a label to it. But, it is difficult.
I know you were responding to tsmog, but just to be sure my comments haven't been misunderstood—I agree with you. It's impossible to avoid them. Labels are here to stay, and are useful. I use them all the time.
I would have to `raise an eyebrow' to anyone that said they didn't.
Any chance or hope on holding off the labels dumped on a unvaxxer anarchist?.
Oh I think there's a range of beliefs within those groups also. I suppose the point being is that people should dig a little deeper for understanding rather than just slapping labels on huge swaths of people and believing they're all identical. I think There is just a tendency toward oversimplification in many areas of life.
"Republicans are building a growing advantage on the generic midterm ballot ahead of next year’s midterms, according to a new CNBC All-America Economic survey.
The GOP has a 10-point edge over Democrats among Americans polled, 44 percent to 34 percent. That’s up from a 2-point advantage from the same survey in October.
The survey, which was reviewed by The Hill, marks the first time the GOP has ever enjoyed a double-digit lead on the question in a CNBC or NBC poll. It is in line with other polls showing Democrats losing on the generic ballot, though few have shown so large a Republican lead."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 … allot-poll
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by Mike Russo 5 months ago
It's payback time for Trump. He is endorsing primary candidates who are loyal to his "stop the steal" movement and they are winning in his battleground states. He is like the pied piper with his following of "Trumpets." This is serious business. He is putting...
by Scott Belford 7 weeks ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
by movingout 10 years ago
As an Independent, I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. I feel we need a true two party system to help rebuild this great country. But instead, I see a divided Republican Party! We have the "true Conservative Republicans (which I have voted for in the past), being replaced by this...
by Credence2 12 months ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Note: this forum is the direct result of a conservative poster's implication through a single example on facebook of a anti-conservative pedophile posting, that Democrats are linked to pedophiles.So, given the revelations in Pennsylvania of 300 conservative priests molesting children with over...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|