- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The reality is that every individual has a distinct set of beliefs and only agrees with others issue-by-issue. Very few people identify themselves with distinctive political labels. When they do, their set of positions rarely corresponds exactly with the views of someone else who is using the same label.
For example, I consider myself a "libertarian" as a close substitute for "classical liberal", but I totally disagree with those who use "libertarian" to mean anarchy or "anarcho-capitalism." To an equal degree, I disagree with those who use "libertarian" as a substitute for "conservative."
To some degree, these labels are perversions or evasions of the meaning of the actual word. A "libertarian" is an advocate of liberty, not an advocate of absolute freedom, as some would have it. The French anarchists used "Libertas" as the title of their newsletters, but meant "freedom from fascism", not advocacy of liberty (freedom from coercion).
Because labels are so vague, their most common use is as an epithet, simply meaning the collective bogeymen "enemies" of whatever principle or policy a person is espousing. It's an excuse to evade civil discussion of those ideas. "They" - whatever the label - are evil, "We" - whatever the label - are good.
We use labels because they are easier than confronting the basic philosophical issues, particularly political ideas about governance. They are a way of evading civil discussion of the evidence, facts, and logic of a particular political position.
