Re-post: If you would like to leave a comment the author gawilliams will see please add a comment directly to the original article page
The Politicus is 100% user generated.
Something has been bothering me for some time now. It is the predilection of politicians on either side of the political spectrum to rely on labeling ideas in order to gain support for or attack ideas. I would like to discuss why this can be damaging to the political discourse, as well as damaging to the process and ability to develop public policy.
When I was in high school I participated in forensics, and as a result one of the events I competed in was debate. Looking back there is one statement that comes to mind that was used quite often when attacking plans offered by the affirmative side of the debate. That statement, or argument, was "That plan won't work. It's never been tried before." There was no real discussion about the merits or demerits of the plans being offered for debate. Just the idea that it hadn't been tried before. We are seeing the same thing being played out today in our political discourse, but instead of something not having been tried before, we are focusing on whether something is conservative or liberal.
It is not uncommon to see political figures when offering alternatives to use a phrase like "we have a good conservative plan" or "the plan the other side offers is nothing more than a liberal approach". These are not exact quotes, but merely generalities to show what is being said. The opposite positing of the phrases is just as applicable. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that one political philosophy has all the good ideas, or workable ideas? Does it mean that just because something is merely liberal or conservative it has no merit? Have we seriously come to the point that a label will determine how we view ideas? If that is so, then we may as well dispense with serious dialogue, and probing examination of the feasability of differing ideas. There no longer is any point if we indeed care more about such labeling.
A friend of mine recently railed against the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare). I listened to him, as I have some concerns about aspects of the law. At no time did my friend discuss specific aspects of the law that troubled him. His entire argument boiled down to opposition to a "Big Government Solution." When he finished, I asked about several specific aspects, of which I will offer two here.. One that I brought up was the issue of eliminating the ability of insurance companies being able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. He said that's a great idea. Then I asked about making sure that insurance companies must use a particular percentage of their revenue for actual health care. He said that would be a very good step in reigning in the power of insurance companies. I then looked at him and said that he had just agreed with two specific aspects of the Affordable Care Act. He looked shocked and said "That's in there?"
The above example, and it could apply to a great many laws, shows that there are some very decent, well meaning peoople out there who are not really aware of what they are opposing and are more concerned about the specific ideological source of it.
Where should our concern be focused? I feel that we need to spend more time looking at whether an idea will work. Labels do nothing more than eliminate genuine debate on any given issue. If we focus on whether an idea will work, we have an enormous range within which to develop solid ideas, good compromises, and a political process that can be respected by people on all sides of the political spectrum.
A hypothetical model of such a process may be in order. A legislative proposal is offered. In committee there is no discussion about small government versus big government, or any discussion about liberal or conservative origins. Instead there is a great deal of discussion about how to pay for the proposal, whether such actions are going to eliminate or significantly reduce the problem that is being dealt with, and if the proposal is capable of being implemented. Amendments are offered modifying various aspects. Some pass, some fail. The proposal moves out of committee and moves to the floor of the House or Senate. On the floor debate some new concerns are brought to light. Some new amendments are offered, with some passing. Finally after the give and take of honest policy concerns, not ideological or philosophical, the proposal passes.
While such an occurrence as above is overly simplistic, it does demonstrate a smoother process by eliminating the game playing and labeling that bogs down the current process. It would allow the public to oppose or support the specific actions of the legislature, while at the same time allowing a greater respect for the government because the process is properly focused. Our leaders will get out of taking advantage of the public, since they would no longer be playing on gut reactions based on usually overly simplistic understandings of political labels, labels that do not reflect what really happens. The election process will be a more positive experience for all since instead of pointing fingers and saying an opponent is either liberal or conservative, it will be focused on the results that are coming from government and the implementation of laws and regulations.
I genuinely feel that we need to move to eliminating labels from our political lexicon and work towards discussing whether ideas will work. It shouldn't matter if something is liberal or conservative, free market or socialist, big governemnt or small government. It should matter if something will work or not. I hope that we move away from the we can't do it because it hasn't been tried before mentality that breeds labeling and lack of genuine discourse.