"I think therefore I am" does not mean "I am what I think." Identity and philosophy are not inseparable concepts and their all too frequent fusion produces serious challenges to civil and productive political dialogue and deliberation. While my effort to expand on Descartes' famous phrase may be too long for a bumper sticker and too short to evoke something profound without elaboration, it is a neat way to introduce thoughts on the impact of labeling in politics.
I am thinking here of labels like liberal, conservative, right winger, left winger, radical, moderate, independent, etc... One problem with these labels is that too many of those labeled (and of those doing the labeling) fail to realize that these labels are indicative of a set of ideas, not something organic to the identity of the adherent to these ideas. In other words, When I am called a liberal, a label I do not shun, it means that I operate with a certain set of ideological assumptions about how the world works. These assumptions are not part of who I am, like my arm or even(arguably) my religious beliefs, they are merely secular ideas on which I rely when trying to understand the political world. Indeed, if people were more precise in their use of language, people would say that I hold liberal political beliefs/ assumptions, or that liberalism is my governing philosophy of choice. To be even more precise, in my case at least, one might say that liberalism is my "default" philosophy of government, which indicates that I begin political inquiry from a certain philosophical perspective but do not necessarily end such inquiry there.
What the hell am I babbling about!?! Well, I think I'm meandering toward a point. These labels may be a manifestation of a seemingly irresistible human urge to "personalize" ideas. The personalization of religious beliefs has produced some of the most inhumane outcomes imaginable. When the sin and the sinner cannot be distinguished, horrific abuses of human rights are sure to follow. Our constitution's framers were quite sensitive to this anti-social element of fixed beliefs, which is what lead them to construct a system of government in which all that is properly political is also properly negotiable.
Though much is made of the framers' conviction that our republic avoid dependence on religious principles, it is also true that they did not support the "tyranny of rationalism or science" which means it is not the content of fixed beliefs they were afraid of but rather the nature of such beliefs and their impact on behavior. My point here is that neither the priest nor the professor can cite the framers' in claiming fixed authority and/or truth, which means that individuals who chose "who" they want based on character/virtue and/or expertise/intelligence may be unintentionally eroding the most ingenious aspect of our great democratic experiment. Instead, the framers would, in my opinion, wish for political choices to be personal only in that they should be based on the chooser's ideas and interests, not the personalized sales pitch of prospective electoral choices.
But everyone knows that politics is about "who" gets what and why, isn't it? Ideas are simply the means by which personal interests are pursued, right? Maybe. Maybe not. One significant downside to the personalization of politics is the fusion of labels and personal identity, a fusion that seems to cause otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people to lose sight of the intellectual content of the labels they claim as their own as well as the ones they hurl at "opponents" as rhetorical weapons. If a label becomes bound up with my identity, then my use of the ideas related to the label may become distorted by the inclusion of my ego in the mix. Intellectually, the conceptual elements of an ideology are contingent, which means that their validity is contingent on the context. They can be articulated as a series of if/then statements. If [insert ideological assumption of how the world works], then [insert ideological policy choice] When ego intrudes on analysis, however, the contingent or conditional nature of ideas can be overshadowed, or lost entirely. The result is that a discussion of ideas can quickly become a competition, and even a healthy competition of ideas can be distorted by the fusion of ego, identity, and ideology.
When politics is personalized the identities, characteristics, and idiosyncrasies of individuals become the basis for choices that probably ought to be made on firmer ground. The policy choices of voters, politicians, neighbors, or any other members of any other human community should probably not be encouraged to rely more on the arguer than on the arguments. In American politics, however, that is exactly what happens. In November, American voters will "chose a president," pick "the best candidate," decide on a new "decider." In the months ahead the question on every one's mind is; "who" will be the next president? Pollsters, politicians, journalists, and activists will be focused on "who" voters will chose. We will endure horse race political coverage and analysis 24/7 but will be at pains to find thoughtful comparisons of the ideas upon which each candidate will base his decisions if elected president.
I would like to encourage those reading these words to partake in a little experiment. In a very conscious way, try to replace "who" with "what." For example, ask friends and neighbors "what" they intend to vote for in November. After a quizicle look, I expect a few words of explanation will do to make the point, which is that a vote for president might be more usefully cast for the ideas and policies with which the voter agrees, rather than for the person they consider most "deserving." Variations on my experiment are not uncommon. Opponents of Barrack Obama have made videos of interviews with Obama supporters at rallies in which they are asked which of Obama's ideas attracted them to the campaign. Invariably the word "change" was used, only to be followed up by silence, or some effort to claim that Obama is a different kind of politician, and therefore he can make change. The results of similar efforts undertaken with McCain supporters produce the same implications. McCain's supporters rely just as heavily on his experience, character, and perceived "straight talk" approach, none of which has any logical connection to the ideas and policies he would push for as president.
I have made many attempts to highlight the relative importance of ideas in American elections, often only to be rebuked as someone who would support Hitler if he was a fellow partisan, an insult that despite actually making my point with vivid clarity usually produces the intended effect.
Thems is my thoughts. While they are mine, they are not me. I take responsibility for them, but do not swear faithful allegiance to them. If my thoughts here have upset or annoyed anyone, I am sorry. Please, don't take it personally.