The Problems with Political Labels

Overuse of labels dumb down thought and discourse

“I confess to a disillusionment with the commonly used political labels. Most have become excuses for people to stop thinking and instead, to simply pigeonhole others in a fashion that may be quick and convenient but is usually superficial and misleading.”—economist Lawrence Reed

Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, Republican, Democrat . . . As with all labels, political labels can be useful general markers but have severe limitations and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

There is no fixed or official definition for any category. Ask twenty people what “progressive” or “conservative” means and you may get fifteen different definitions and many will be unable to give an exact definition. Further, people often have false stereotypes about other groups, influenced by partisan news and social media.

Pew Research Center has listed the percentage of each group in the Democratic and Republican parties. However, those polled self-identified and had a diversity of personal definitions of each category. Further, the pollsters require that respondents choose only one category, forcing artificial distinction on people who don’t define themselves by rigid categorical terms.  

Some labels have multiple meanings. For example, the American definition of liberal is unique to the United States. In the U.S., it means politically far left, while in most of the rest of the world it means classically liberal. In classical liberalism, a liberal can be an American political liberal, moderate, libertarian or conservative. I worked on an academic project with a Ukrainian in Moscow. She said I was a "liberal," and I later realized she meant a classical liberal. She may not have known the American definition of the term.

Most people don’t fall entirely into one label, and each category contains people with a diversity of views. There are religious conservatives who are not economic conservatives and vice versa. There are social progressives who are economically moderate or conservative. A common problem is that many people assume that if someone is conservative or progressive on one position that they are conservative or progressive on all other positions.

Newspaper columnists Andrew Sullivan and Brett Stephens are commonly labeled as conservatives. Sullivan is gay and supports gay rights and gay marriage, while Brett Stephens supports gay marriage and is pro-choice. Does this mean they are conservative in some ways and not in others? Or does this mean beliefs and positions within conservatives are more complex and diverse than many think? Perhaps some don’t categorize them as conservative. At the least, it says one should not automatically assume what a “conservative”’s or a “progressive”’s position is on any given policy.

In the essay ‘Political Labels are a Farce,’ history professor Hyrum Lewis writes, “Incorrectly claiming that there is a philosophical connection between unrelated political positions leads to confusion and false stereotyping. We might call someone a ‘warmongering right-winger’ on the mistaken assumption that their belief in lower taxes tells us something about their views on the military. A pro-life pacifist could be called ‘right wing’ for being pro-life or ‘left wing’ for being a pacifist.” 

Political labels are often used as weapons to ad hominem attack or smear an opponent. To the correct audience, ‘liberal,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘progressive’ or ‘socialist’ is an insult, so folks trying to gain their favor will call their opponents by that label even when the label is false. I’ve seen people on the left, including Social Democrats, called ‘alt-right’ and ‘right winger’ as insults from people even further to the left. During political campaigns, I’ve seen Republican candidates call other Republican candidates socialist and liberal.

Linguist and New York Times columnist John McWhorter says, "I'm a liberal Democrat who's called a right winger by some because my views are liberal and Democratic rather than radical left. To some in the radical left, if your views are anywhere right of radical left you're quote-unquote a 'conservative.'"

Labels prevent critical thinking, listening to others, and learning what other people think. They increase political polarization, and tribalism, and dumb down discourse. Many will dismiss people as having nothing worthwhile to say simply because of their label.

I’m not arguing that we should entirely drop labels, but that we should not focus on them so much.

.

“Woke” and “Critical Race Theory”

Critical race theory (CRT) and woke are two current terms that are used and defined in a variety of ways. They at times are buzzwords and are used as weapons to smear others.

Woke is defined in different ways, and its meaning has changed. For many, woke is a positive term for people aware of social injustices. For others, it is a derogatory label for people who are insufferable, self-righteous and evangelical in their progressive political beliefs.

There’s no reason that both definitions can’t be correct. Nearly all words have multiple meanings and connotations depending on the context and situation. That's why dictionaries list for any given word: Definition 1, Definition 2, Definition 3, etc. I myself use the word woke in different ways. 

Critical race theory is a wide body of academic work and has different meanings and applications. University of Chicago professor and social critic Jerry Coyne writes that there are different versions and interpretations of CRT. This means that one should judge people or groups by what they do and specifically say, as opposed to merely by whether or not they support CRT.

My experience is that most people in both the left and right who post idle opinions or memes about it on Facebook or Twitter have badly distorted ideas of what it is. They get their distorted and often outright false conceptions of it from their preferred partisan news sources.

Coyne and University of Illinois sociology professor Ilana Redstone write that people both within the political right and left mischaracterize CRT for their political purposes. Coyne says the left media and politicians tend to whitewash CRT and its use, such as deceptively saying, “It’s only a legal theory used in law schools and is not taught in elementary schools,” and falsely saying, “It’s merely the real, objective history of race and slavery in the United States.” Coyne says that, on the other hand, the right media and politicians tend to overstate CRT and use it to prevent much racial justice education and minimize the effects of racism.

Coyne writes, “A pox on both houses.” He also suggests that, as it means and suggests so many things to different people, the term critical race theory should be dropped from our vocabulary.