I am fine with being labeled a Republican though. I have no problem with labels. I don't make myself conform to the label. The label is a guide for people, so if I haven't expressed myself on an issue, and they don't want to ask me, they can just say, "Oh as a Republican he probably feels X about Y." Maybe you and Obama need to get past the issue of labels and say that, even though they are useful, here are the areas in which that label may mislead you about me: ... I don't pretend to know Obama's stance on every issue, so there is probably something on which he opposes the liberal side. Let's say for arguments sake that he was for prayer in school. He could say, while I am a liberal, I am against prayer in school. Your idea to get rid of labels is a) not going to happen, especially in a two party system, and b) not very practical. With party platforms out there, it saves everyone a lot of time to identify with one party, and then tell how you are different from that party (and possibly which particular issues you have in common with the party that you feel very strongly about. Very few people, if any, are going to hunt down every candidates stance on every single issue, just to avoid labels.
It remains to be seen if it will happen or not. Even if Obama's idea reduces the use of labels to divide, then it will be a step in the right direction. You may say you don't care if you are labeled a Republican now, but you did when you made the other post that Sam brought back. That is why you were inconsistent.
I think I have been discussing the whole idea in a less than clear manner, and not really in the right direction until now. Here is the problem with political labels. Let's look at the issue you brought up earlier. You mentioned abortion. For the sake of argument let's say I am not against abortion if the mother's life is legitimately in danger. But I would be in favor of closing loopholes or possibly even flat out anything that allows abortion in the third tri-mester, while placing more restrictions on top of the ones about the second tri-mester. There are probably areas in there where you and I could find some agreement, and work toward getting something done if we were legislators. But once the label of pro-abortionist, or anti-choice or whatever starts coming out, that is divisive and stops progress from being made. The same can be said of any number of issues such as engery, healthcar, etc. We all know that something needs to be done about those, and people with different political philosophies may have different ideas as their base. But again there is probably common ground in their on certain things, and definitely the goal, that can be discussed and worked toward. One labels of tree-hugger, and wing-nut start coming into play or it is seen as too liberal or conservative then the issue becomes dead and no work gets done. Obama is talking about finding the common ground and working in that area. It is productive, efficient, and removes the divisive labels that hinder that kind of work. It isn't that people are on one side or the other of issues. It is that with most issues people from all over the political spectrum can find some common ground. Labels prevent them from using that common ground to make progress. By searching for the common ground within the issues it gets around that divisiveness. To look at an issue and put one person on one side, and another person on a different side ignores the area where agreement and progress can be made. It is a far better, more issue oriented way to run a government. It does make the old one side or the other seem almost barbaric and outdated. It is time to move past that.
I didn't care then either. I labeled myself a Republican. I merely said that I was a Republican with caveats. That is not a rebellion against labels, it is a good use of labels. I'm going to drop this now, because either you can't or won't get it. As for your common ground argument, that is the road to no one being happy. Everyone needs to put their ideas out there, and then let the best one win. Compromise just means everybody is unwilling to make a choice, one way or the other. Let's look at the abortion argument. You say we should look for common ground (which many politicians have tried, I might add) but I would be unsatisfied if abortion was allowed in any circumstance where the life of the mother was not at risk. Obviously that means I share common ground with people that think abortion should be disallowed under whatever set of circumstances they come up with (because we both would want abortion disallowed under those circumstances) but settling for that is not enough IMO.
Well said, that's why communication is very important. Therefore Bush's reluctance of negotiation will create more enemies than he can handle.
There are cases where comprimise isn't justified. But for the most part that is the pathway to progress, and is how we've gotten much of the good that comes today. It can be a starting point. I'm not asking you to settle on the abortion thing. But if you were trying to earn $500 and someone came up with a deal to give you $200 would you say that was comprimise and not take the $200? Or would you take the $200 and continue to try and find ways to get the whole $500? What you are saying is that you want $500 and that you getting $200 would make you unhappy.
