Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Don't Label Me Bro!

You’ve probably heard about this “No Labels” garbage the left has come up with? Ostensibly, the idea is that if we can keep people from labeling each other “liberal” or “conservative” or “communist” or “RINO” or “idiot” then we can end the horrible partisanship that keeps “us” from getting things done. What a load. This is nothing more than an attempt by RINOs and leftists to make it hard for the public to spot them.

This laughable idea was created by two failed political consultants. On the left, you have Nancy Jacobson, a former finance director for the Democratic National Committee and a Hillary Clinton-campaign creature. On the other left, you have Mark McKinnon, who once worked for arch-conservative John McCain (**snicker snicker**) until he decided that he “[didn’t] want to work against an Obama presidency.” Poor dear.

Politicians who have outted themselves in favor of this idiocy include Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Evan Bayh (D-Ind); RINOs Mike Castle (RINO-Del), Charlie Crist (RINO-Fla), and Tom Davis (RINO-Va); and a slew of leftist hacks from MSNBC. “Labels get in the way of getting things done,” whined RINO Tom Davis, who spent his time in Congress pushing for DC statehood and federal pay raises.

So what are these groups after? Let’s look at each group.

The RINOs want a home. Their repeated betrayals of the Republicans have worn thin and Republican voters are done with them, but Democrats don’t want them either. They are hoping that by getting rid of labels, they can hide in the squishy middle while getting re-elected on personality and favor trading. In fact, their ideal world would be one where there are no parties and, thus, no primary voters to answer to.

The Democrats want a lifeline. They blew it with Obama/Pelosi. The voters hate them and the Republicans are ready to be as aggressive with them as they were when they were in power. So they are now pushing the idea of being bipartisan in the hopes that the Republicans buy into this and they can sneak through their policies despite the growing Republican majority.

The left wants a way to hide. The left has a long history of spoiling any label they tried to adopt. Their policies are poison. They destroy economies, they endanger people, they create poverty and make existing poverty more intense, they encourage crime, they encourage racism, they encourage violence, and their ideological compatriots have been directly responsible for killing millions of people. Thus, it’s no wonder they’ve worn out their welcome wherever they’ve been. Therefore, they’ve had to change their labels every couple of years as the latest label gets disgraced, so that people don't realize who or what they are.

Indeed, they went from progressives to populists to radicals to socialists to liberals and a dozen more, each time trying to choose a name that sounded like a good thing and eventually disgracing that name through their actions. If they could create a world where politicians and ideology bore no labels, then they could avoid being found so easily. Instead of people saying, “watch out for the progressives,” and everyone knowing exactly who and what that meant, they could hide among us in plain sight, pretending to be just concerned politicians. . . part of the generic establishment as a whole. It’s the political equivalent of camouflage.

These are the people who make up the “No Labels” coalition, a collection of losers looking to deceive the rest of us about who they are. Sad.

Finally, let me ask this. What exactly is wrong with partisanship anyway? Partisanship is what gives the voters a clear choice of ideas. Should we complain that McDonalds doesn’t also offer a Whopper? Or that Long John Silvers doesn’t offer tacos or winter clothing? No. That’s ridiculous. We want clear choices that let us decide what we are in the mood for, with each restaurant specializing in one type of item rather than all restaurants doing a little of everything because we know that promotes better quality and cheaper prices. So why is it, when it comes to politics we’re suddenly supposed to want politicians who offer fish-taco-hamburger jackets?

Seems kind of obvious to me.


CrispyRice said...

Good article, Andrew!

Labels are good. I can't say I'd see myself shopping for winter gear at Long John Silvers. Pirates know nothing about cold weather. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Very true Crispy, plus it would be covered in doubloons and that would weigh you down when you're tying to shovel snow! ;-)

DUQ said...

Nice summation there, Andrew! I think you've pegged it.

It's also all part of the bigger moral relativism the left loves. Nothing is right or wrong, so you can't talk about things in black and white. You can't (horrors!!) LABEL them!!

It's turning us into a country where a prof who has an affair with his own daughter is just expressing his different lifestyle choice... and that's OK!

It's ruining our country.

CrispyRice said...

Oh, and sorry to get off-topic here, but did you hear about what the Dems did last night? The $1 trillion spending bill full of pork they're trying to pass??

It's outrageous. Luckily one of the Republicans has said he's going to insist the secretary read the entire bill. (Something like 2000 pages.) Hopefully that will slow down enough to kill it.

But my question is - why do we even let Congress back into session after elections? When a company fires someone, they generally get escorted from the building that day, no? Why can't we do the same? UGH!

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Thanks! And I agree -- this idea of political correctness, that we shouldn't speak the truth if it hurts someone is ridiculous and it leads to problems being glossed over and only hurts the people who are afraid to hear the truth.

We should never trust anyone who is afraid to speak the truth.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Yeah, I heard about that. I hear it's full of earmarks too, so John McCain should be thrilled.

Good point about Congress. They should be escorted to the Washington city limits once the election is over!

Ponderosa said...

Reminds me of generic label food black letters, white background: "Beer", "Noodles", etc.

Cheap and disgusting.


Same criminal behavior, now with even less accountability!

AndrewPrice said...

Ponderosa, It reminds me of that too. A bunch of people in plain gray wrappers whose values we know nothing about. And no doubt it would then become unfair to point out how these gray-wrapped people voted on anything because that might label them. Instead, we should just accept that they are good people who have our best interests at heart.

Wait a minute, I know that system. The Soviets used that system. Hmmm.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, the only time we should have bipartisanship--or non-partisanship, or whatever you want to call it--is in one congressman's personal dealings with another, like sending them condolences on the death of a family member or something. While I'm all for "civility" and "decency" in politics, like Nancy Pelosi claims, it shouldn't go to the point of compromising one's principles.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I agree. Let me add though, that sometime there are things that are simply non-partisan bills (like declaring a holiday) or instances where you can reach an agreement (e.g. I give you something that doesn't violate my principles and you give me something). But when it comes to principles, those should never be surrendered for the sake of just getting along or getting something done.

"Bipartisanship" is a trap the left lays. First, they never talk about it when they have the power, except in a negative way. But the moment they lose power, they insist that it's the only good way to rule.

Secondly, it suits their purposes. They want to increase the size of government. So they ask for a trillion dollars and the Republicans "compromise" for $200 billion. Then they come back for more and we compromise again. And soon they have their trillion, it just takes then 2-3 deals to get it. That's ridiculous.

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Isn't it funny that we weren't talking about "no labels" when Democrats had full power of everything. Now it's all Rodney King-esque "can't we just get along" everywhere. I can understand where the "no labels" appeal comes from--ignorance. You'll hear people who know nothing about politics say things like, "I'm tired of the bickering in Washington--I just want them to work together to get things done." Sadly, many idiots out there will get behind this stupid movement.

By the way... you mentioned Mike Castle as part of this movement. Do you see him running for office again soon?

AndrewPrice said...

Pitts, Good points!

First, it is ignorance and it's the kind of ignorance that appeals to the dumbest of us.... those who assume that there is only one right answer to all questions dealing with human interaction, i.e. people who cannot grasp that humans tend to disagree about what they want.

Second, you're absolutely right that we never hear this garbage when the Democrats have power. In fact, the same people who are now doing the Rodney King whine (nice analogy!) were telling us before the election that the Democrats had been "too bipartisan" and should have run the Republicans over. Hypocrisy is part of the liberal genetic makeup.

In terms of Mike Castle running again, I suspect he will. For guys like him, being loved by the voters is an addiction. So I see him getting a K-Street job for a few months until he decides what office to run for -- governor, House, Senate.

Dane said...

This no labels thing is bull. They know no one will accept their beliefs if they're honest about them, so they need to hide who they are.

AndrewPrice said...

Dane, I think that's true. How can you trust an ideology that won't tell you what it's goals or policies are and wants to hide from people?

Ed said...

Where were all these calls for bipartisanship when they were ramming through Obama's agenda? Weren't we told over and over that elections have consequences and that the Democrats should use their majorities to push through what they want to push through?

ArmChairGeneral said...

Next thing you're going to hear is that they do not want to be called man or woman either. We are all labeled and we label ourselves just fine without help from others. Take me for instance. I am an author, a writer, a game designer, pirate reenactor, libertarian husband and a father. Ok, my 'real' job is in IT but hey how else can I describe myself without using labels?

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, There weren't any calls for bipartisanship, there were calls for Republicans to get with the program and do what Obama wants. But that's how they always play this game.

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, Imagine a world without labels. . . it's easy if you try. . . nothing to tell you what you're buying, or help you understand why. Imagine all the people running around confu... u... used.... ;-)

P.S. I love the Pirate Re-enactor thing! That is totally cool!

LawHawkRFD said...

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will let people know who I am (or who they think I am).

AndrewPrice said...

That's old school thinking Lawhawk. The new thinking on the left is that sticks and stone are ok if the cause is right, but name calling is bullying and harmful and must be stopped.

AndrewPrice said...

FYI, Folks, the tax bill passed the Senate easily -- 81 to 19. So now we see how much sway Obama has with House Democrats.

Either way, the damage is done and the Democrats look like angry children.

JG said...

I know I'm late coming to the conversation, but AMEN! I'm so sick of seeing people, even "conservative" third-party promoters, talk about how much we need bipartisanship and fewer labels. Um, labels save lives. It's the difference between grated Parmesan cheese and rat poison. Do you want to have to guess which one you're putting on your spaghetti?

That's probably a silly analogy, but we need partisanship. Partisanship is what drives people to defend ideas and protect their constituents. Like you say, people want clear choices. And when someone says they are for "bipartisanship," all that says to me is that they are too feckless to stand for anything, up to and including my rights. But I'm one of those "right-wing extremists."

JG said...

BTW, it is no surprise to me that the likes of Gillibrand support this. Didn't she run as "basically a Republican, just happens to be a Democrat"? Gah.

BevfromNYC said...

I think it's great! We need a "liberal" third-party movement to be the spoiler for the Democrats in 2012. It will be 1992 all over again except this time it will Obama who suffers instead of a Republican candidate. If you think about it, this is the perfect way for the Dems to get rid of Obama without having to run against him in a primary.

Of course, by grouping together under the "No Labels" banner, they have actually labeled themselves. Maybe they should have done the Prince thing and just use a symbol.

BevfromNYC said...

Actually JG, Gillibrand has always been a Democrat in a more conservative Democrat district. Once she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in 2009 in the Senate, she began drifting left to please Chuck Schumer and the Dem Leadership in NY.

And frankly the only issue that made her "conservative" was her stand as a pro-NRA'er. That changed though.

AndrewPrice said...

JG, I agree entirely. And your analogy about rat poison is entirely correct.

Labels are what help us understand the world. Without labels, we have no basis for communication. They are what help us distinguish between different products (rat poison/Parmesan) and between good and bad products (Coke v. Pepsi v. ElCheapO brand). They are how we take a large amount of information and make it something we can process, like the difference between saying "thunderstorm" and needing to describe the details of what is happening.

They are also how we classify people. How do you find an electrician if you can't label one? How do you find a particular type of doctor or lawyer if you can't label them?

Without labels, it would be almost impossible for us to communicate with each other in any meaningful sense.

So if they are so important in every other aspect of our lives, why should we suddenly fear labels in politics?

Moreover, if you believe the things you advocate, then why would you be upset about being labeled? Shouldn't you be proud to adopt the label? In other words, if you believe in progressive ideas or conservative ideas or whatever, then be proud of the progressive label, or of the conservative label or the moderate label or whatever.

The idea of getting rid of labels is an idea advocated by people who know that the public does not like what they stand for, and they want to try to get their ideas through by stealth, i.e. deceit. There is no other reason.

If their concern was really in just finding ways to cooperate, then they can do that through negotiation and persuasion, not by trying to inject confusion by getting rid of labels.

AndrewPrice said...

JG & Bev, I'll defer to Bev on this one as I don't know much about Gillibrand.

I will say though, that none of the names surprises me. Tom Davis in particular has been a far-left "Republican" for years -- further left than even most of the famous RINOs. And the Democrats on the list (like Machin and Bayh) seem to be people who are finding their states drifting right as their party speeds further left. So they need cover of some sort.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'm all in favor of a new party forming on the left to split their vote! But sadly, I think it would need to be a progressive party to cause an effective split. Splitting moderates into a new moderate-middle party probably would just end up all talk and no action. Still, I wish these people luck in splitting the left! :-)

CrispyRice said...

OMG, Bev, this is so true - "Of course, by grouping together under the "No Labels" banner, they have actually labeled themselves."

It's like a bad SNL spoof! I can see them marching down the street with the "NO Labels" banners and pins. "Paid for by No Labels LLC."


Individualist said...


I have a compromise that might make the No Lables thing work for you. We will all gladly trade their labels for a number. It works like this...

Each and every politicians track record is analyzed and the value of the cost to the tax payers of their votes is calculated. To that we add their salary plus other perks such as their own private jets. They then have to wear special hats everywhere they go that shows a running number indicating this cost real time.

I will gladly do away with the label for the number in the spirit of bipartinship.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy & Bev, Brilliant! LOL! Talk about irony! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, That is a system I could actually get behind! What a great idea! But somehow, I suspect that the "No Labels" crowd won't go for that. LOL!

Patti said...

i haven't read thru the comments, so forgive me if i am repeating the voice of others, but when i hear/read this nonsense, my gut reaction was it is just another liberal ploy to prey on the weak-minded.

sounds good in theory: let's not have sides; let's do the work of the people TOGETHER. but anyone who has lived into their 20's knows this is ludicrous.

it's the same idea as not keeping score at peewee basketball games, so no one feels like a loser. what the libs deny is that there is something to be learned in losing, that there is something valuable in knowing where one stands.

can those who disagree come to agreement? absolutely. happens every day in my marriage. but i'll tell you what neither of us tolerates and that's plain old fashioned deception or manipulation. it's soul-killing.

it's as true in marriage as it is in national discourse.

if i meet a person who tells me they are "no label" i'll know one of two things immediately. they are either a) a brazen lib or b) a weak-minded soul who refuses to think for themselves.


AndrewPrice said...

Patti, Very true. People who disagree can always find ways to come to agreement. The idea of not labeling is irrelevant to that, and in fact, would hinder the process because it would prevent people from understanding where everyone stood.

This is nothing more than attempt at deception, and that's the real disturbing part here. If they were being honest, they would have come together and found policies they could agree upon and call that a platform. Instead, they are advocating this "let's get sneaky" approach, which is unacceptable.

Good analogy to a marriage too, the same rules apply there and to all other human endeavors -- deception is destructive, and those who would deceive usually cloak their goals in something more noble sounding. . . "can't we all just get along?"

Tehachapi Tom said...

Ask a Marine if he would endorse no labels.

One label I can live without thoigh is the one bo wears.

Forest said it "stupid is as stupid does" and boy is this a stupid concept.

AndrewPrice said...

Tom, I can't see any Marine ever agreeing to lose the Marine label. Labels, good or bad, tend to be earned and that one's a hard one to earn.

Tennessee Jed said...

"No L" is code for "loserboy" no question. I admit I could theoretically admire a person who analyzes each and every political issue on it's own specific merits and votes their conscience. That, of course, is not these guys.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree. I think all politicians should look at each issue independently rather than just doing what their party tells them. But (1) as you say, that's not these guys and (2) it's the principles you use in making that analysis that get you labeled.

Post a Comment