I didn’t think much of the so- called “No Labels” movement when I first heard about it. I think even less of it after interviewing one of its spokesmen, Holly Page, on my radio show.
I hoped for a free-ranging discussion about the organization’s vision and beliefs. What I got, instead, was an impenetrable, human press-release. Page was like a broken record, stuck on a handful of slogans, platitudes and vagaries. Her resistance to answering any substantive questions could have withstood waterboarding.
No Labels presents itself as the voice of reason and moderation, above parties and ideology. For public consumption, it claims to have no foundational beliefs or philosophy, just a dedication to the process of civil discourse. It echoes Rodney King’s profound question, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Of course, we all could if we simply agreed about everything, which we don’t, so we can’t.
For all its professed moderation, No Labels doesn’t hold back in demonizing others with gratuitous, inflammatory terms like “hyperpartisanship” and “ideological extremism.” There are, no doubt, some who fit those descriptions, but what about those of us who are merely ideological and partisan? That is, we have positive ideas and productive associations with political parties. What’s wrong with that? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and FDR was a Democrat. History has treated them respectfully.
No Labels likes to hang its hat on the word “centrist.” And it is centrist. It’s not radically left, like or the DailyKos. But it’s certainly not right-center. It’s left-center. Those labels do matter, and they’re instructive. They tell us where people sit on the political and ideological spectrum, which helps us comprehend why they stand where they do. No Labels founders and key players like Holly Page are overwhelmingly Democrats whose resumes are heavy with Clinton connections.
“Not left. Not right. Forward,” is the No Labels slogan, tailor-made for a T-shirt worn by callow, idealistic youngsters in a middle-school mini-government program. “Forward” connotes progress, which is a code word. No Labels, you see, is really progressive, the label liberals adopted when liberal went out of fashion. So the direction is, of course, (left) center, as we progress on the road to an American version of Euro-socialism.
Whoops, there are those labels again. But they do paint an accurate picture that saves a thousand words. Viva labels!
No Labels isn’t really ideologically neutral. That will become apparent in the public policy positions it endorses. It’s just another way of packaging basically liberal ideas for the benefit of the politically naïve. The two major parties aren’t going away and one or the other will continue to dominate.
In my futile attempt to bring Page down to Earth, I asked about her beliefs on basic matters of public policy, from economics to defense to social issues. She clammed up, offering only the platitude, “What’s best for America.” Presumably, we all want that. But we don’t all agree on what’s best and how to get there. Her scripted comeback was to accuse me of putting my party above my country. That’s a classic false dilemma.
Of course, I don’t. Nor do Democrats. But I believe that as an instrument of public policy, Republican values, philosophy, agenda and prescriptions are generally the best course of action for America. Democrats prefer their party, as do members of any number of minor parties. We may agree on some things, but we’ll always disagree on enough to make the political soil fertile for a multiplicity of parties in a free society.
No Labels asks us to “put our labels aside.” What difference would it make? Dropping or changing a label won’t change my beliefs, principles or vision, any more than the No Labels crowd has changed its. And none of this will bridge the political divide.
Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.
