My morning perambulations around the Internet included a thread discussing what “libertarian” means in the context of foreign policy and a(nother) quiz that promised to place me on the political grid. The former is quite commonplace in libertarian circles, and increasingly so outside of them as the word “libertarian” filters into the broader political consciousness of society. The latter satisfies an innate tendency to label things, and the ubiquity of such quizzes (they tend to be click bait) testifies to their popularity.
Labels are useful things when discussing politics. They are a form of short-hand, offering up a quick and dirty summary of one’s positions, and save one the trouble of having to list out where one stands on the long list of issues that concern people. What the labels actually mean and stand for, however, often causes a lot of contention.
It’s a common joke that libertarians’ favorite pastime is denouncing each other as not real libertarians. Within the joke is a kernel of truth: different people have different definitions for libertarianism. They run the spectrum from constitutionalism (i.e. a belief in holding to the simplest and most literal interpretation of the Constitution) to outright anarchy, with various digressing branches. In the libertarian world, it’s not nearly enough to simply tag one’s self as libertarian. Anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism, minarchism and objectivism are just a few examples, and even these will prompt loud arguments as to which is truly libertarian (or libertarian at all).
The exclusionary element of this in-fighting is, in practical terms, counterproductive. If libertarians want to influence policy and achieve real change, they’re best served by banding together and amassing sufficient numbers to influence elections and decisions by lawmakers. For many, though, purity trumps practicality. While it is fair to declare that one won’t compromise principles beyond a certain point (what good will come of winning if the winner you supported barely registers on the libertarian spectrum), demanding 99.9% adherence to one’s particular flavor is a sure way to belong to a very small group. What, though, are people actually fighting over when it comes to the word “libertarian” itself? Is it the desire to own the word, to use it exclusively and deny its use to others who have similar but not identical views? Why is it so important to be the guy who gets to wear the badge?
I briefly presumed that this is a problem primarily found within libertarian circles, but quickly disabused myself of that bit of myopia. RINO – Republican In Name Only – is a common epithet bandied around conservative boards. Attempts to define it have had some success, but oftentimes devolve to the I know it when I see it test. Socialist – a label that’s used both as a proclamation and as an epithet – is another that stirs controversy. Is Obama a socialist? By strict definition, no, but relatively few actually know or care about the strict definition of the word. Demonstrating that the word has fallen out of disfavor, those who dislike his policies brand him one, those who support him dismiss the idea.
The labels Republican and Democrat work a little differently. They refer to political parties, not ideologies. The ideology of each of those labels is hard to define, both because it evolves or mutates over time and because the parties embrace collections of positions that are sometimes mutually contradictory. Nevertheless, the majority of people in this nation attach themselves and their families to one of these labels, and cast their votes based solely on these labels. This is basic tribalism, a mindset that’s hard-wired in our DNA. It explains the desire to own a label. Just as we like it when our baseball or football team wins, we like being a part of a group we consider better than others.
If you trend libertarian, getting to call yourself a real libertarian means you stand with and are accepted into a group you admire and support. Being a “true” Republican means the same thing. To be excluded from the label because your ideology doesn’t fit the crowd’s is to be cast into the wilderness, un-labeled and therefore undefined in the eyes of others. Being alone or standing outside a desired group is contrary to our basic predispositions. It can be incredibly painful and depressing, as anyone who’s sat alone in a high school cafeteria knows. The desire to own a label is rooted in the desire to be included. For people with statist tendencies, it makes sense. If you prioritize groups over the individual, you’ll want to be a member of the groups you hold in esteem. For individualists, however, it seems contradictory. Why fight to belong to a group if you hold groups subordinate to the individual?
The answer to that question is validation. In owning a label, we assert that, in the eyes of third parties, we are the true and correct arbiters of what that label stands for. We declare ourselves the leaders and judges of the group that congregates under that label. We are Regina George from Mean Girls. We get to decide what everyone else who wears the label is supposed to think, and the direction that the labeled group goes. Tagging a politician a RINO is a declaration that one doesn’t like the direction the RINO is taking the Republican Party. Screaming that someone is not a real libertarian is a declaration that one isn’t willing to move with that someone, even if it happens to imperfectly advance the cause of liberty.
Statists/liberals/leftists are a lost cause in this arena. Identity politics has thoroughly suffused the Left in this country, and what one is is far more important than who one is. What one believes, the labels one wears, is determined by one’s demographics, and deviation from the predefined belief set is anathema.
Amongst those who value liberty and the equality it provides, however, label ownership is a contradictory impulse. While group membership is important for achieving political change, it mustn’t supplant the belief in one’s self as an individual. We can join a group in order to more effectively pursue change, and we can argue the direction and belief set of that group, but if we fight over label ownership, we go down the path of exclusion. We should accept that individuals are different, celebrate the differences, and band together over commonalities. Fighting over labels runs contrary to this. Fighting over labels is exclusionary. It tells someone “I have defined X. If you want to call yourself X, you must accept and adhere to my definition of X.” It’s authoritarian and hierarchical, not cooperative.
Don’t bicker too hard over labels. Labels mean something and convey certain information, and they shouldn’t be watered down to nothingness. But, they shouldn’t be elevated above their proper role either. Labels, as I noted earlier, are a short-hand. They convey quick information, and should be the beginning of a conversation. They are not an end unto themselves, and shouldn’t be fought over as such.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters