“Democrats want to…”
“Republicans won’t…”
“Conservatives can’t…”
“Liberals believe…”
“Christians think…”
Go ahead: fill in the blanks. You won’t be alone. Countless times each day, someone fills in those blanks, and many more. One big statement — accusation or applause — is painted on one big label, and that statement is asserted to be true for every person who might don that label.
Why not? They’re easy assertions to make if you can believe that every big label covers a monolith, a slice of the population that thinks, believes and acts the same. And since so many people are willing to use those broad brushes, you’re more likely to be met with equally easy assertions than you are to be challenged to think on a smaller scale.
Democrats want to … destroy the foundations of America? Republicans won’t … pull their heads out of the sand?
I realize this generalization is necessary to some degree; to cover the variety contained in any one large group would require a prohibitive amount of time and effort. The range of specific beliefs within the “Christian” label, the range of specific ideals within the “Liberal” label and the range of specific opinions within the “Republican” label are far too large to be easily listed. So for the sake of convenience and continued dialogue, a world of pundits — both credentialed and self-appointed — speaks generally, perhaps with the assumption that everyone remembers the details within the broad strokes.
But do we?
I am not sure I can honestly say I am consistently careful to avoid the traps of the big labels; even if I am, it would be hypocritical for me to produce my own broad brush to assert that few consider the details. That is not my intention; There are plenty of people who use the larger labels as a tool of necessary convenience rather than a shortcut or a crutch.
Unfortunately, those people are not as entertaining as the easy label traders, so they don’t attract such vociferous fans, nor are they as easily parroted. Broad labels with underlying complexity become shallow labels with overarching simplicity, making it easy to forget that allies can have some differing opinions — and enemies can have some common opinions.
And if you disagree with this post … well, you’re whatever label you most dislike. So there.
I believe you are conflating two issues. One is using perjoratives when describing groups, and the other is describing the groups at all.
To the first, clearly such an approach is less than impressive. It proves nothing other than you really, really disagree with that group.
To the second, it seems as though we are forced into using “big labels” when it comes to American politics. When was the last time a non-Republican, non-Democrat was taken seriously? Not in the sense of “taking away votes”, but taken seriously as a candidate who might win? Once we’re narrowed to two groups, we’re forced to treat each uniformly by the groups themselves. They’re always struggling to present a unified front, not because it’s an honest representation of the party, but in order to attract more voters than the other party. So we’re all pushed into one group or the other presumptively; you have to ignore the details if something like that is going to work.
The groups that benefit from the big labels make every effort to encourage their use, but I think it’s a bit too strong to say we’re “forced” to use them. We don’t have to let the falsely unified front push us into ignoring the details, but most people do it anyway. The groups take advantage of general laziness. Saying we’re forced into it minimizes our individual opportunities to consider those details instead of flocking to detail-ignoring talk radio hosts.
But the attraction to the easy is human nature, I suppose.
Maybe forced is a little too strong, but only a little. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone say, “I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, but. . .” and then go on to use them. That is, many people would prefer to use other terms, but they seem to feel compelled to use them anyway. I’ve noticed that “liberal” is being replaced by “progressive”, but that seems only a change in form, not substance.
So maybe essentially compelled, instead of forced. Which maybe is the same thing. Maybe it’s the two-party system, as I suggested above. Maybe it’s talk radio hosts, as you suggest. Whatever the reason, you’re spitting in the wind if you use something other than the accepted labels. I find the same frustration in taking back the word “gay”. There’s no modern replacement; we lost a quality word. But I can’t try to bring it back without, perhaps, getting beat up – “my, you’re looking gay this morning!”
I agree; consistently reducing the whole of the US to two groups is misleading and inaccurate. But it will certainly be a queer turn of events which changes it.
You lost me at conflating.
“And if you disagree with this post … well, you’re whatever label you most dislike. So there.”
If you ever call me a Patriots fan again I may come down there and punch you in the mouth. I am most certainly not whatever label I most dislike.
At least the Patriots have enough sense to lose to the Bears in Super Bowls. So they can’t be that bad. Plus their QB is from UM. Now if there were a team out there that stood in the way of the Bear’s winning a Super Bowl, and that team had a QB from some second-rate SEC team, being a fan of that team would be a label worth fighting over.
By second-rate SEC team, do you mean Notre Dame?
Ouch and ouch. Man. This is ugly.
Politics and sports. Yeehaaa!
I think if I would call ND anything, I would call them a second-rate Big Ten team. I would have just left it at “SEC team”, because that’s insult enough. But the Bears had the poor sense to play their Florida QB instead of their Michigan guy, so leaving it at “SEC team” would implicate the Bears as well.
some genuinely choice content on this web site , saved to fav.