By Mary Coen
We have all heard that
" Democrats are socialists", that " Democrats are pro-abortion",
that "Democrats are "tax-and-spenders", are "for open
borders", are " pro-entitlements" and more. Labeling is such a
commonly used tactic, especially in a campaign year, that we take it for
granted. Indeed, we may even indulge in it ourselves. But should we?
Labeling by definition
is " the act of assigning to a category, (especially inaccurately or
restrictively). The human brain instinctively acts to categorize; we need a way
to sort incoming information or we would not be able to make sense of our world.
But like so many positive behaviors, labeling can run smack into a number of
risky ones: mis-labeling, inaccuracy, terminology that becomes slanted or even
reversed over time, and even outright lying.
An obvious case of
mis-labeling is calling anyone "pro-abortion", as if allowing the
choice is the same as being enthusiastically in favor of the activity, as one
might be in favor of, say, going on vacation or eating chocolate. What
proponents of the right to have an abortion should be called, accurately, is
pro-choice. One can easily be both pro-choice and pro-life and in fact many
are. What the opponents of the right of women to control their own bodies
should be accurately and only labeled is anti-choice. We need to keep in mind
that the anti-choice movement consciously chose to call themselves pro-life
precisely to infer that their opponents were therefore against life--a gross
mis-labeling. We can only hope to mitigate some of that damage by making a
concerted effort to deny their self-promotion as the pro-lifers by always
referring to them as anti-choice.
Probably the most
overused label assigned to Democrats currently is "socialist". It is
meant to install fear in the heart of every " God-fearing, patriotic
American" ("patriotic" being another problematic label). But it
is highly misleading in that there are so many different definitions of
socialistic systems that one label cannot possibly include them all. The word
"socialism" was initially meant to describe a set of behaviors in the
social sector, not in the governmental one. It described a system of sharing--and
not just goods: most religions have some sort of socialistic behavior as a
basic tenet, as in sharing/helping one’s neighbor. But the word has been so
co-opted and attached to political objectives that to label someone today as
simply a "socialist" is bound to be inaccurate. It is so broad as to
become meaningless without further definition. The closest accurate label for
most of the Democrats on the campaign trail today is a "modern socialist
democrat"--one who is in favor of a capitalistic economy in making money,
and in favor of socialism in government spending, i.e. sharing. It's going to
be tough to get a correct label to be used on this one.
One of the craziest
labels recently thrown at Democrats and meant to be derogatory is that of being
" pro-entitlements". The preferred dictionary definition of
"entitlement" is " having a right to something". Whether
the right was earned by working and paying into, or conferred by citizenship,
or simply by membership in the human race, the right itself is fact.
Arguments can certainly be made about the conditions of eligibility, but the
right itself is a given. Farther down in the dictionary is a definition of the
phrase " feelings of entitlement" meaning the belief that one is
"inherently deserving of special treatment or privilege". Apparently,
this meaning has been substituted for the original one, provoking a flashpoint
of disdain for those receiving their rightful benefits.
So what about the
labeling of Democrats as pro-open borders? What do you call an exaggeration so
broad as to be generally untrue? There are probably some people, somewhere,
likely Democrats, who think that completely open borders are a good idea as
policy, but the history of recent Democratic administrations does not support
that. Nor do the current party leaders. What Democrats have argued for is
policy reform and humane treatment. Immigration is a complex subject in need of
much discussion and nuanced policy, but labeling all Democrats as in favor of wide-open
borders is clearly a lie.
Another derogatory label
given to Democrats, "tax-and-spenders", comes across as a bit of a
puzzle as Republicans are just as involved in taxing and spending money as the
rest of us. We just differ on whom and how much to tax, and where to spend.
So what are we to do
about mis-labeling in all its forms? What indeed can we do? We still need
the clarity that sorting information brings and a common way of talking about
that sorting. The truth is that we cannot control the labeling of others,
correct or not. We can take it lying down, or shouting back, or even calmly
trying to explain but we shouldn't expect much success in changing minds or
behaviors. But we can be aware that our judgments in labeling others are
subject to the same risks, consciously or not. What we can do is, when a label
comes up in any communication, ask "What do you mean by that?" That
would take time; it would require listening as well as explaining; and it might
risk our sounding naive to have asked in the first place. But we just might be
able to avoid some giant pitfalls of misunderstanding.
