I do believe that Obama is not an ideologue, and that is why he doesn't like the labels. Those who knew him in the State Senate said that he honestly evaluates every decision and makes it based on what he thinks is the best solution. But what he thinks is the best solution almost always called for more government involvement. Even so, typically, the candidates who try to ignore labels and create their own way are the ones who end up strong non-contenders. (i.e. 3rd to 5th in the primaries.)
That is only true because they are running away from their records, and don't have the fortitude, vision, and charisma of Obama. In his case he isn't just saying don't label me. He is saying that everyone should move away from the labels. There is a difference. One is a defensive move of weakness. Obama's twist turns it into an offensive weapon of the future.
Obama's denial of his liberal voting tendencies is an offenseive weapon of the future? That is rich. Very rich. So basically you are saying, "Issues don't matter." GREAT. Good luck selling that to the voters. Do you think you can just gloss over the issues, by saying 'don't label me?' Now that's just funny. The libs are all too willing to slap labels on Republicans for their conservative positions. But when Democrats espouse liberal positions, but refute a label, it is an 'offensive weapon of the future.' Sorry Blade, but that offensive weapon is about as powerful as David Carr's pocket presence.
I will need a shower after saying this, but I completely agree with TJ. There is in effect an embracing of a man simply because he hasn't taken a stand on many issues. It's mind boggling to me
He isn't denying a liberal voting record. He isn't denying anything. He is explaining that labels like you are fond of using divide rather than unite people, and he is about uniting and not dividing, so it is pointless to try and label him. Obama hasn't run from a single issue he has taken a stand on, he has taken stand against labeling him because of those issues. Labels don't matter, issues matter to the utmost.
Actually he has taken a stand. The embracing is because he demands that we look at the issues themselves rather than try and just pass it off as a label.
Labels are a shorthand for our stances on issues. Now, some people are hard to label, because not a great many people share their stands on many issues. Obama is easy to label, because he is almost always taking the liberal position on the issues. It isn't the label that is divisive, it is the disagreement on the issues. I don't care if the other side is called abortionists, pro-choice, liberals, or Vlade Divacs, I don't liike what they stand for, and thus we are divided. The problem isn't with labels. The problem is in viewing divisiveness as bad. I am thrilled to be divided from those who I think are wrong. I hope enough people are divided from them that those who represent the people who are right are put into power, to enforce the right policies.
I am The_Conquistador and you are unable to label my political beliefs! ^ | | | | Check out my offensive weapon!!! LOL
I find your spelling offensive, Trader_J. Don't disagree about Carr, however! D&D. A Carr is Not a Car. It's a Broken Down Bus.
Issues matter but not very much. The majority of Americans tend to vote for whoever he/she wants to hang out in a bar with. That's the truth of democracy and what democracy is really about.
Labels are something that keeps people from really examining the issues. It is the label that is divisive, because when many people hear the word liberal or neo-con, they get an idea which may or may not be accurate, and then don't examine the issue any further. During much of the 80's when polled on issues people often ended up choosing the liberal side of the issue, yet they liked conservatives, thus Reagan was President and the Reagan revolution happened. But on polls about individual issues, the responses were often liberal.
Obama's offensive isn't about applying only to himself. He wants to change all of politics so that the labels aren't where people stop their political curiosity. He wants to move forward. It makes people who are stuck on labels seem petty, out of date, and stuck in the past.
Labels and stereotypes will always be there simply because human brains are limited. They have to abstract things (ie label things) to discuss things. I think a better approach is to share "facts" such that at least both sides will learn more and hopefully by confronting the "reality", we can see things in a more similar fashion.
I think you put too much stock in this idea. If I did a series of polls, and I asked the following questions... ...most, if not all, of these would have a majority support them. However, if I asked... ...I doubt I could get 20% of Americans to say yes. In fact, you wouldn't have the same people vote for any two of my first group of propositions. The ability to generalize is a huge part of intelligence. The ability to generalize correctly takes real wisdom. The key to a successful representative democracy is the ability to generalize a candidate's stands, and trust that he or she will represent your views in more issues than not.
I see no inconsistancy there. I don't let the label of Republican define me. I don't march in lock step with the party on a number of issues. I have no problem with the use of labels, nor do I find them devisive. They can be inaccurate, as your label of me as consistently inconsistent is, but that is a tangent to this discussion. Thanks for posting that though. What horrible grammer I used there, the first two sentances could have been 1 with a comma, and everything from "I am anti-abortion" through "want your vote" should have been a single, comma seperated list. With language skills like those, it is no wonder my campaign flopped. I don't blame the label in such a situation. If people are mislabeling themselves, mislabeling their politicians, or just to lazy to see if labels others have applied are accurate, then they are the one's to blame, not the labels themselves. If you had the same people, but didn't supply them with labels, they wouldn't go and inform themselves about the policies espoused by the candidates, they would probably vote based on their appeal on television, who their friends were voting for, etc.
because you don't march lock step with the GOP you wanted to make sure that the label didn't stick to you. Yet that is how labels are used. You wanted to make sure your stance on different issues were seen on an individual issue basis. That in itself is a disagreement with the idea of labels in the political arena. Because the labels are used by someone else in an effort to portray people a certain way. It is rarely 100% accurate. The idea here is that we move past that. The idea is that we move forward, and look at issues in and of themselves. That was the exact thing you were trying to accomplish when you didn't want the label of Republican. Yet you argued for the idea of labels earlier.
