Labels Don't Help: Liberal or Conservative

In American politics the labels liberal and conservative carry the load of identifying a person. We are in the midst of a Presidential election campaign, in which the conventional stereotype of Democrats as liberals and Republicans as conservatives is paraded before us. No Democratic candidate dares recommend conservatism, nor will you find any Republican pronounce himself a liberal. Campaigns do not welcome fine distinctions and differentiations. In the primary voting season, candidates of each party try to out-orthodox their competitors for label correctness, for fear of frightening the voters. They are not running for President; they are running for party leadership and its label carrying privileges.

In the heat of the contest, the liberal will call the conservative naïve, and the conservative will paint the liberal as unpatriotic. Ones on the outside ends of the spectrum think those in the center don’t have a real position on the issues. But to be on either end of the scale means you are extreme in the eyes of the majority, which includes both the middle and the other end. So, after the summer party conventions, the nominees, to be electable must move to the center, which translates into gray or mushy. What we really need is someone immune to labels, who knows how to counterbalance the weaknesses of both extremes, one who is comfortable in the center without appearing wishy-washy, but knows how to challenge tired ideas.

The labels, liberal and conservative, describe perspectival reflexes, not definitional categories. The difference between a liberal and conservative is not that they disagree about the perils of our times. It is that they flinch differently. They see the danger in different locations, or rather coming from different directions. The conservative sees the danger immediately in front of us; the liberal sees it over our shoulder. Each thinks the other is blind. The conservative thinks he is the realist, the practical one, who knows how to not only take care of the obvious problem quickly and hence, effectively, before it gets out of hand and preferably before it gets up any steam (that is, preemptively). The liberal thinks the conservative is too shortsighted to recognize the real problem. He feels we need to reject the quick fixes because they create more problems, and would rather we turn and recognize the full danger--deal with the root, not just the branches. Both sides have a point, but the best approach is to look both in front and behind (from the center) and not think one approach is more patriotic than the other.

The center is not where there is a windless, gutless softness; it is where there is a firm, undistorted, energy-filled wisdom. But it takes a special articulateness to stand there and not look as if you lack vigor and emotional energy.

Conventional wisdom on how to get elected eviscerates charisma and blurs integrity. Candidates are preened, adjusted and managed, until there is nothing left to admire. What we need is someone who cannot be labeled, who doesn’t care about labels, who is just himself or herself, who knows the attractiveness of energized composure.

Let us citizens look around and draft a person who already is what we are looking for. If a candidate would step forward and not kowtow to political correctness and labeling, he or she would quickly find the pulse of the people. At bottom, we all know what the country needs. The candidates should identify themselves as who they are, not who’s t-shirt they wear. They should brashly bare their wisdom. They will either flop or soar, labels be damned.

Doug Good