Labels Identify, Labels Divide
We love labels. They do our thinking for us.
Amy is a progressive. Amy is a moderate. Two different images arise. One we like better than the other. One we trust more than the other. Even though we have never met her, in our minds we know her. She has been safely labeled and put into a box.
We understand by naming and attaching a label. That is the plus side. On the down side, the label captures only part of the whole.
In a lifetime of being a politician, I have never introduced myself as a “politician”. The reason, as I wrote in the introduction to Our Politics, I wanted them “to know me first, discover something else about me that might go on the plus side.”
In addition to never capturing the whole, labels divide. They emphasize differences. They invite conflict. There is always the pressure to choose sides.
The urge to label, however, is strong and for the media almost irresistible. Conflict sells and conflict requires identifiable sides. A story about Stacey Abrams in the New York Times several months ago recounted the effort to label her – define her – as a moderate or a progressive. The headline asked, “Who’s Right?”
The question has “new urgency” because she is running for Governor in Georgia. As though the question was ever “urgent” and keeping us awake at night.
The story goes on to quote claims made by both moderate and progressive leaders that she is one of them. In a moment of candor, one allows, “We are both kind of right.” The reporter, however, sees the mixture of moderate and progressive, not as a representation of who Abrams is, but as a political ploy to “straddle the line” between moderate and progressive.
From the reporter’s perspective you have to be one or the other. You can’t be both. You have to choose. There is conflict. That story is much easier to write and easier to understand than a more complex one that allows for nuance and conflicting values.
Refusing to be labeled is not easy. It is not just a matter of semantics. You need the strength that Abrams has “not to be pushed around by anybody in the party, from the center or from the left.”
As Democrats we are attached to our labels, having built a lot of organizational boxes for ourselves with walls and brand names. We are Our Revolution. We are the Working Families Party, We are Indivisible. We are For Our Future. We are Blue Jean Nation.
There are more than 150 such groups in Wisconsin working on increasing the Democratic vote, according to Promoting Democracy, itself a new organization. All this in addition to generic “progressives” and “moderates”.
Why so many different brands of Democrat?
Together is difficult. We pick at our differences. Motivations are questioned. Organizational interests are protected. Ideological beliefs get in the way. There is little trust. Brand competition requires differentiation. We fight. What we have in common is ignored.
The default mode in our culture, in our religions, in our politics, is to split into smaller and more homogenous groups. Diverse and inclusive takes intentional effort, particularly when we hold our beliefs strongly.
In the commercial world where increasing profits is the goal, competition among brands producing the same product makes sense. A niche market can be lucrative. Increasing brand share at the expense of a competing brand by even a small amount can be a huge success.
In the political market, where winning elections is the goal, competition among different Democratic brands makes little sense. All the brands together have to reach 50 percent of all voters before there is any payout. If one brand increases its share at the expense of another, success is no closer.
Watching the brand wars among auto companies, one would never suspect that under the hood, the parts are mostly the same. So too with the various Party brands. Despite the fighting words, there are more similarities than differences.
In listing the 150 groups in Wisconsin (2,500 across the country), Promoting Democracy emphasized unity as the only path to victory. The Party should view the groups not as competitors, but .as “deep and lasting friends” even though they said some “critical, harsh or unfair things” in the past.
Trust, humility and a tough skin, all in short supply, will be required to achieve that unity.
Part of Abrams’ recipe for winning in Georgia was her ability to work with anyone and the fortitude to ignore the backlash from those invested in their own boxes.
We can follow her example. We can start to practice togetherness. Lower the walls in the boxes we have built. Refuse to be labeled. See individuals in all of their complexities. Accept that truth comes in many forms. Walk with all who travel in the same direction.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]