By Edwin Cooney
For as far back as I can remember, political leaders and their followers have indulged themselves in political labeling. Political labeling is a two-edged sword. Even though many take pride being labeled Liberal, Conservative, or even Fascist or Communist, many others are invariably damaged by it.
Even as it's natural for people to seek and find comfort in an acceptable set of ideas proscribed for the common good, few of our personal agendas are compatible or consistent with their fundamental pronouncements. Here are some examples:
A Conservative wants government, especially the federal government, out of the “free marketplace." At the same time, Conservatives demand that government protect business from its most annoying competitors and detractors including organized labor’s potential striking power.
Liberals, on the other hand, even as they demand the socialization of commerce and industry, resist any regulation by government that limits the practice of what they regard as their legitimate civil rights.
Religious believers agree that Congress should make no law affecting the establishment of religion, but would squawk like hell if the government began taxing churches and other religious institutions.
The National Rifle Association, which is heavily peopled by states’ rights advocates, demands federal support to maintain their right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms in support of a free militia. However, the roar they invariably emit over the mere regulation of any gun would make the biggest and baddest lion envious.
Back in 1976, both mainstream Republicans and Democrats sought to accommodate one another on the question of the right to abortion. The GOP platform suggested that the right to an abortion ought to be a matter for the states. Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter insisted that he would block the spending of federal funds in support of abortions.
Hence, the constitutionality of abortions versus the morality of abortions poisoned our national dialog. Thus, Americans find themselves today labeled as "pro-life" versus, as some insist, “pro-death” adherents. Additionally, pro-life proponents too often deny poor mothers and fathers the taxpayer money that they need to feed the children that pro-life adherents insist must be born.
In 2023, Americans are increasingly faced with the necessity to unite so that they can creatively indulge each others' needs.
I'm not about to be ashamed that as a liberal Democrat I believe that government is a legitimate tool for the benefit of most people. Nor should a Conservative be ashamed in his or her advocacy of the free market or of their advocacy for states' rights.
As I asserted at the outset, both Conservatives and Liberals ought to shamelessly use government as it meets their lawful and social needs. Remember, social needs are human needs.
In a 1911 speech in Pottawatomie, Kansas, former President Theodore Roosevelt insisted for the first time that human needs are superior to property rights. TR had his critics but no one ever called Teddy a Communist and got away with it — if they so dared!
Political labeling is little more than childlike name calling. Unfortunately, it's as American as baseball, apple pie, or Chevrolet.
Words lack precise power unless they mean something. Political labeling doesn't either inform or accurately describe anyone or any group of people. As for baseball, apple pie and even Chevrolet, they're all a matter of taste.
Few people are academically knowledgeable or consistent in their political labeling. Few have read Karl Marx and, in fact, the onset of World War II proved that too few leaders including Churchill and Roosevelt had read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Had they done that, there might have been no World War II.
I've made my case. Now, it’s your turn!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment