No Label - Fine Words Without Meaning

[Avi]

I found it surprising to learn today that a so-called new Political Group has been inaugurated in America.

It is so-called for the founders and supporters are some of the same old tired faces seen for decades in this country. True, they apparently represent both "right" and "left" views, but in the eyes of an American detached from such ideologies they are liberal or conservative in name only, that is, paying lip-service to the ideals purported based upon the close association claimed to either party. And we all know why those claims are made, for the furthering of their finances. Just look, the "founder" of this movement is a specialist when it comes to raising funds.

The first point is that knowing what we do about fraudulence by the "appointed" leaders of the day, (recent examples would be the BP Horizon disaster, the Haiti disaster, the mortgage fraud and lending robbery, err, crisis, as well as Katrina, Underwear Bomber, Rapistscan and more) why should this event be viewed as anything but another attempt to defraud the public and divest them of their power?

While I agree in principle that not many Republicans or Democrats do much, if anything at all, for supporting the values of Truth, honesty, transparency and basic decency, what a slippery slope to now believe that with the advent of another "choice" anything will be different than before?

The ONLY choice we NEED our elected officials to HONOUR and thus propagate is HONESTY and TRUTH! So why can the EXISTING parties not merely step-up to the plate and make THIS their top priority rather than create a pressure release valve - with the name No Label, no less, the irony being that it hearkens back to the movie Brewsters Millions and his "none of the above" reverse psychology, which though it did the trick in movie land I rather doubt this effort will garner as much support as Richard Pryor did.

To imagine for a moment that this is a truly democratic country and that both the 2004 and 2000 elections were not hijacked by the Bush regime, therefore that the voice of the American people is actually heard and obeyed by those in power, what might be the potential benefits of such a union? And what downfalls?

First, the most obvious downfall apparent is that rather than serve to unite people more closely aligned to the middle spectrum it will instead serve to siphon off those "undecideds" and in turn serve to strengthen one or the other major parties in times of election. This is of course imagining, still, that there actually ARE elections and not s-elections.

As for the 3 C's of civility, common ground and co-sponsors a far better alliteration would be communication, co-operation and coordination. But that first one, civility, makes me cringe for it is an indirect reference to the increasingly angry populace and therefore the eruptions that burst forth at times by those tired of rhetoric, lies, false flags and straw-men offered as "sacrifice" to appease those with an inkling of awareness that the world is not as it seems to be at face value and therefore expects, if not DEMANDS that the government respond according to its intended design, namely to SERVE the PEOPLE to be a VOICE of the people, by the people and for the people, and not, AGAINST the people, against their OWN people as the current government makes clear by its ACTIONS and not its words, as pretty and fanciful as they might be, used in a war for the minds of the public.

While I believe that respect is important and goes a long way in understanding the world, the self and how we relate to one another, there is a gnawing suspicion that this use of the term "civility" is not really about keeping the debaters from the constant bickering and petty analysis that is often off the mark or ignores the real issue (TRUTH being the main ingredient in ANY issue) but rather to appeal to those who still mistakenly believe the government actually is a civil instrument and not a military one.

http://www.slate.com/id/2277783/pagenum/all/#p2

Read the Label
The new political group No Labels shows why labels exist.
By Christopher BeamPosted Monday, Dec. 13, 2010, at 6:21 PM ET

Everything you need to know about the new political group No Labels is contained in its slogan: "Not Left. Not Right. Forward." It's smug. It sounds like an Obama campaign catchphrase. And it ignores the whole reason politics exists, which is that not everyone agrees on what "Forward" is.

A group of political and media A-listers descended on Columbia University Monday morning for the group's big launch event, which co-founder Mark McKinnon dubbed in his introductory remarks "our little Woodstock of democracy." No Label seeks to be the voice of reason in an increasingly hyper-partisan environment—a counterweight to interest groups at either end of the political spectrum. Instead of rewarding candidates who spew partisan talking points, No Label says it will raise money for moderate candidates who embrace what co-founder Jon Cowan calls the "three C's": co-sponsors, common ground, and civility.

The guest list at Monday's confab said as much about the group as its slogan. Attendees were a mix of media commentators (David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski), recent political losers (former Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist), politicians who aren't seeking re-election (New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh), and moderates who have special permission to buck their party (incoming West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman). In other words, a bunch of people with nothing at stake.

Even if they did have something to lose, signing onto "No Labels" is risk-free. The group's mission statement is filled with the bland pablum of political campaigns. It's the kind of stuff that's so obvious, no one would ever disagree. "Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works—driven by shared purpose and common sense." Unlike all those groups that prefer a political system that doesn't work. "Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success … provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way." Me, I'm for spending wads of money on failure. "America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties." That is going to upset their rival group, Americans Against Strength, Safety, Readiness, and Ability To Protect Ourselves. Their mission is so popular, even Akon could get behind it. (Sample lyric: "See a man with a blue tie/ See a man with a red tie/ So how about we tie ourselves together and get it done.") And if members were worried about how it would play in the polls, don't worry: Its founder, Nancy Jacobson, is married to Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn.

To prove that political compromise is possible, politicians at the No Label event touted their own bipartisan achievements. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand cited a bill she co-sponsored with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn that created searchable databases for earmarks. "He wants to ban all earmarks, and I like federal investments to create jobs, but one thing we agree on is about transparency," she said. Well, sure, but they still disagree on banning earmarks and federal spending. Cooperating on a softball issue like transparency doesn't change that.

The group takes a pass when it comes to issues that actually divide people, like gay marriage and abortion. Anticipating this critique, the group's Web site argues that social issues have been used to "keep Americans from working together." Instead, it says, "We want to help call a cease-fire in the culture wars by focusing on common ground goals rather than absolutist positions on the left or right." Even on an issue as polarizing as abortion, says co-founder and CNN personality John Avlon, most Americans agree that the procedure should be "safe, legal, and rare." But his answer seems to undermine the point of the group. If there's consensus on so many issues, what's the point of creating a group? To defend that consensus?

No Labels sounds noble in theory. But the group misunderstands what bipartisanship is. It's not two parties deciding to be nice to each other. It's a moment when their self-interests happen to align—moments that are increasingly rare. Washington does not have a "civility problem." It has a polarization problem. Politicians aren't any meaner now than they were 30 years ago. It's just that over the last few decades, the two parties have become more ideologically coherent. Back in the 1950s, some Southern Democrats opposed racial integration, and some Republicans in the North favored a robust social safety net. Opposition to abortion was a bipartisan affair. There was a Christian right, but there was a Christian left as well. (The first Catholic president was a Democrat, after all.)

All of that changed in the '60s and '70s. Small-government libertarians aligned themselves with social conservatives under the Republican umbrella. Social liberals and economic interventionists joined the Democrats. In the 1980s, there was still enough overlap between the parties to beget phrases like "Reagan Democrats." But every year the parties drift further apart. In a conversation with NPR about "No Labels," Charlie Crist trotted out the old saw about Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. Those men "probably didn't agree on a whole lot of things ... yet were able to get along and at the end of the day, go out and have a cold one and understand that it's important for them to be civil." Sure. But by today's partisan standards, O'Neill and Reagan had a lot in common. What stops Barack Obama and John Boehner from taking smoking breaks together isn't that they're jerks. It's that they don't agree on as much.

That's just Washington, says No Labels. "The rest of the country is not hyperpartisan," McKinnon told the Washington Post. "They say: 'There's MoveOn on the left, the tea party on the right and nothing in the middle for me.' We're trying to become a microphone for those voices, to create a system that rewards and gives a shout-out for good behavior." One audience member echoed this point on Monday, arguing that "independents don't care about labels." Wrong. Independents pretend not to care about labels. In fact, the vast majority of so-called independents lean toward one party or another. The number of true independents who switch from party to party is 5 percent to 10 percent of the electorate.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of No Labels is to show why labels exist in the first place. They're so busy talking about what they're not—not Republican, not Independent, not conservative, not liberal—you never get a handle on what they are. Labels are a useful shortcut for voters who want to know what a group is all about. The lack of a positive mission beyond bipartisanship and civility (which both Republicans and Democrats also call for) makes it hard to know what they really want.

There's nothing wrong with calling for reason and civility. Jon Stewart did just that at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, with eloquence if not tangible success. The difference is that Stewart explicitly removed himself from the political sphere. (Critics got angry that he didn't call for young people to vote.) But both the Stewart rally and No Labels have the same flaw: They promote "civility" in media and politics, respectively, when in fact the problem is structural. Fox News gets all huffy over TSA body scanners because of ratings; Republicans fulminate about Democrats trying to pull the plug on grandma for electoral reasons. Fixing the problem isn't a matter of everyone being nicer. It means changing the systemic incentives, whether they're Nielsen ratings or approval numbers. And it's hard to do that without labels.