Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Label

Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Radical

Pick a category.

I find all of the labels and terms frustrating and not conducive to understanding the real issues and points of view relevant to political debate.  People are so caught up in the labels and stereotypes that nothing can truly be discussed in any depth.

The Wizard of Oz in the Broadway show Wicked sings this...

"A Man's Called A Traitor or Liberator.
A Rich Man's A Thief or Philanthropist.
Is One A Crusader or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label is able to persist.
There Are Precious Few At Ease
With Moral Ambiguities,
So We Act As Though They Don't Exist."

Is the Wizard right?


We might as well label everything "A," "B," and "C."  Would that be harder or easier to remember?
Part of the problem is that anyone who identifies him or herself as a member of one of the above groups wants to tell you that everything he or she thinks as an "A" is sunshine and lollipops.  Also, the same person will tell you that all "B"s beliefs will lead to doom and gloom. The terms have been distorted.  The terms have been used and reused until they've become almost meaningless. 

The nouns "Democracy" and "Republic" have been mangled too.
Democracy is defined Merriam-Webster as...

1: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The country which during its existence was known to most of the world as "East Germany" was formally titled the German Democratic Republic.  I personally would have referred to it as a truly Socialist or Communist state, despite it's claims of "Republic" and "Democracy" in the title.

Is "The People's Republic of China" really a Republic?  Is China a place where the power of rule lies with the people?  It has a largely nationalized economy and oppressive government which clearly restricts the freedoms of its people.  I'll let you decide if the formal title of China truly describes it's nature or if maybe it's just trying to sound good to "the West."

"Conservative" can be used in an apolitical context to describe the closed, but peaceful nature of the American Amish.  "Liberal" can be used to describe the "free love" attitude of 1960s youth movements.  The terms have also changed over time and are extremely dependent on context.  Some so-called conservative values now, would have been considered highly liberal notions in the past.  Were the American Founding Fathers conservative or liberal?  If you transplanted them to today's context would most people consider them backwards thinking and small minded (a liberal's opinion of a conservative), or would they be considered radical, illogical or immoral loonies (conservative view of liberals)?

I don't have a solution to the "terms" problem, but I felt the need to express my frustration with the whole system of political labeling.  Maybe we should all just move to Oz where there's a Wizard who will tell us what we want to hear while tying our hands behind our backs.  Wait.... we already have governments doing that.

References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China

The Boiling Frog Syndrome

If one tolerates the taking of "small" freedoms, when the large freedoms are taken (life, liberty, property), it is too late to resist.

We cannot allow ourselves to be set in cold water that slowly heats and boils us, like the fabled frog.  Though the metaphor is not based on fact, the sentiment is valid. 

I watched Schindler's List, directed by Steven Spielberg, for the first time recently.  I have personally visited the memorial constructed on the grounds of the former Dachau Concentration Camp and read Man's Search for Meaning by survivor Victor Frankl.   I am by no means an expert on WWII or the Holocaust, but I still have very strong feelings about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-N0827-318,_KZ_Auschwitz,_Ankunft_ungarischer_Juden.jpg

Though certainly not the only example of mass genocide, the horror and efficiency of the Holocaust makes it without a doubt one of the most heinous crimes against human beings in history.  I think, as members of the modern world, owe it to the memory of those murdered to learn from history and never allow it to happen again.  Nothing can justify the evil and inhumanity displayed by the SS, and mass of bystanders.  There were indeed some stunning acts of courage and deep compassion displayed by Germans and Jews alike despite personal risk, including Oskar Schindler and others.  Though the actions of Schindler were nothing short of heroic, the point at which he acted allowed him to save only a small fraction of the Polish Jews affected by Nazi control.  They all had to wait for a large outside force of selfless soldiers from the Allied forces to liberate them.

I can't help but think of Patrick Henry's famed speech, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"  The key is to identify the point at which surrendering small freedoms to the state is at it's tipping point.  It must be recognized at the moment when it's happening, not retrospectively.  Such loss of freedom is a slippery slope that reinforces the need for the Constitution's Second Amendment.  Though I would like everyone in the world to lay down arms and live in peace, my realism and practicality will not allow me to naively believe that pacifism and giving up my own power will make that happen.  There will always be those in the world who are happy to take advantage of the weak in trivial or world-changing ways.  Is it not better to take up arms when small freedoms are threatened and be called a little overzealous, than to stand idle and be powerless to defend ourselves against future evils?

Read more: One point of view about the Boiling Frog Syndrome.

Monday Tidbit

"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." p.122
 
Frankl, Viktor E., Man's Search for Meaning, Washington Square Press, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1963.