Why is it that people can often be so quick to categorize? Humans are very unique creatures, and any attempt to corral them into particular sets is always imperfect at best and usually counterproductive.
I particularly despise the “left wing” vs. “right wing” labels, despite their common use in today’s vernacular. How I feel about one particular issue has no bearing on how I feel about another unrelated (or even semi-related) issue. I am a person who is capable of forming his own opinions and feel no need to subscribe to a “party line” and have my opinions fed to me by whoever may lead such a party. I realize that many of the American people (on both “sides” of the political isle) seem to vote that way, but that’s a flaw in the system in my opinion. Actually, it’s a flaw of the people in the system who are too lazy to change it, but I don’t want to get into an anarchy rant at the moment.
I am sad to say that I see this constantly in discussions I have on any issue that is even marginally political, or even issues that I don’t consider to be political issues at all, like our nation’s actions in Iraq. Because many (certainly not all) of my opinions may fall to the “left” (for example), does not mean that launching into a tirade about Bill and Hillary (or “liberals” in general) is somehow therefore automatically relevant to the discussion, but it always seems to go there nonetheless, instead of sticking to the issue at hand.
What I really don’t like about this is how it seems to defeat any efforts to make progress on a lot of issues. “Right wing” groups and organizations as well as “left wing” ones (perhaps even more so on the “left”, I will admit) often have a core set of “values” or positions that they adhere to, and are unwilling to embrace or cooperate with anyone who does not sign up for all the items on the list. This is truly unfortunate, since I think there is an opportunity for a lot more progress to be made by striving to find common ground rather than dividing lines.
The abortion issue is a perfect example. If you could somehow magically calm everyone down and have a rational discussion, you’d probably find that most people (on either side of the issue) would agree that working towards women having fewer abortions would generally good thing; obviously one side would favor this, but many organizations like Planned Parenthood also clearly state that their goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, listing abortion as a last resort among many.
But instead, we (as a culture/race) seem to insist on coming up with phrases like “pro-choice” (implying anti-choice opposition), “pro-life” (implying anti-life opposition), “baby killer”, etc., etc., that effectively destroys any hope for progress. While claiming to be “fighting for the lives of the unborn”, people will refuse to consider any approaches (even ones proven to work in other countries) such as education and birth control options which don’t fit into their dogmatic, narrow-minded view of “the solution”. Similarly, those who “fight for the freedom of choice” will often refuse to consider the fact that no one can really even define life, much less when it actually begins, and that it might be wise to err on the side of preserving it, whether it may be there or not, since it is impossible to know, and that if life is or may be present then perhaps that “choice” is not so clear cut.
The unfortunate reality is that *real* solutions to such problems are very complicated and difficult, unable to be accurately described on a piece of cardboard attached to a stick held by a shouting, closed-minded person. They also usually involve some degree of compromise from both “sides” if they are ever to be successful. It’s just so much easier to name call, and talk about how the [insert derogatory political group label here] are so screwed up.
10 Comments
Please … on Dan’s blog I was making a joke based on a previous comment that Dan had made. Not to mention you were making a typical argument from the left. Lighten up. It’s not the labels that prevent people from cooperating; it’s ideology. If you don’t have one then good luck.
First of all, this comment isn’t solely based on your comment from that post, so don’t get all bent out of shape about it.
I don’t think anything about what I was stating on the post you are referring to was a “typical argument from the left”; I think you just may have conditioned yourself to see things in that frame or reference.
Dismissing anything that sounds similar to what you may have heard from “the left” before as a “typical argument” from the left, and reading into that things that I didn’t say just because that’s how you choose to view it is exactly the ridiculous mentality that I’m talking about here, because instead of actually listening to what I’m saying, you’re blending it in with a whole bunch of other stuff that I didn’t say.
Whether you say it’s the labels or the “ideology” that prevents people from having rational discussions about things is just a matter of semantics. If your “ideology” consists of staking out your positions and refusing to listen to anyone you don’t agree with, then your ideology is lame.
I have an “ideology”, for sure, but it isn’t a closed-minded one that lumps groups of people into simple categories and lets that predetermine whether I agree with them, or (even worse) make assumptions about what they think just based on the label I’ve chosen to give them.
if you can’t see that the argument you were making was a typical left argument advocating higher taxes to social engineer then I don’t think your beign honest with yourself. I’m not closed minded but I’ m not going to twist my sentences into a knot just so I don’t use a dreaded label. That would make it impossible to have a valuable debate.
It wasn’t a typical argument, it was my own original thoughts on the matter. Just because parts of it sounded similar to what other people or groups have previously said (whoever they may be) is no reason to both dismiss it as a “typical left argument” or to use that classification that you decide to make in order to read in things that I wasn’t even saying.
I’m being completely honest with myself. I never said that I had sole license on all the views that I presented; if some “typical left” groups also share similar opinions, then so be it. What I was taking issue with is your implication that because of any such similarity, you lump what I’m trying to say in with what you’ve heard before from other people, rather than having a conversation based on what I actually said.
By all means, I’m not suggesting that everyone needs to carefully avoid certain phrases in a discussion, but I am suggesting that all the implications that go along with the labels that are used are serious roadblocks to a productive conversation, because then you end up debating a stereotype of what you think the other person believes instead of actually listening to what they’re really saying.
Getting back to the subject of this post/rant, it was actually primarily inspired by my frustration with a lot of “left-wing” groups which seem to not be very inclusive in bringing in people to help their cause unless they also subscribe to a long list of unrelated issues (which I mentioned in this post above). I know that doesn’t fit with something that someone in your “typical left” framework would say, but try to think outside the box a little bit.
The comment you made yesterday on Dan’s blog just reminded me of that kind of mentality, and the fact that I wanted to post about it. I wasn’t referring to you specifically in this post, and I didn’t even link to that discussion or mention it until you did.
Thanks for explaining the no trackback because I was going to say something.
Ya, I know how you like those trackbacks, and I always use them where appropriate, but like I said, this post wasn’t primarily about that discussion, and I wasn’t really planning on the discussion focusing on that, so since I didn’t mention it, I didn’t think a trackback was in order.
was it kierkegaard or perhaps dick van patton that said, “if you label me you negate me” ?
Word, Nathan. Jared, being misunderstood sucks too.
i personally like labels as a good starting point, but only as a starting point, not as a way of building fences.
I’m ok with H4.
One Trackback
[...] It really irks me when people steal a post from someone, especially within a knit group of bloggers. It’s one thing to fork the conversation off another post or to take information from another major site to start a more personal blog conversation but to just set-up a few links and not redirect conversation just seems wrong to me. Jared, sorry to call you out on this but I’ve seen it everywhere and you’re the most recent attack thief contributor. [...]