What's In A Label? By Jack Dallas

Either we label ourselves or others do it for us.  These labels are how others perceive us or how we perceive ourselves.  On the political front, these labels normally have to do with party affiliation or ideology.  You may register as a Republican or a Democrat.  You may also be a Libertarian, Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Communist, Anarchist, or a Political Atheist.  None of the labels in this latter group requires registration in our system of government and some people may identify with more than one label.   I am old enough to remember that some Republicans today would have been Democrats back in the ‘50s.  This would be especially true of those with a sense of white entitlement or at least a fear of white subjugation. 

1860 Presidential Campaign Poster

In the1860s, after the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that expanded protections for African Americans and advanced social reforms while Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.  Republicans favored big business, which also meant they supported big government to fund Western expansion and the transcontinental railroad.

Sometime between our World Wars, these positions were switched and the Democrats, under the leadership of F.D. Roosevelt, ushered in the New Deal to solve the problems of the Great Depression.  This brought us financial reforms, welfare and pension programs, and infrastructure development.  It was the dreaded “S-Word,” but it worked.  Roosevelt instituted a series of experimental New Deal projects and programs, such as the CCC, the WPA, the TVA, the SEC and others, that aimed to restore some measure of dignity and prosperity to many Americans.

Roosevelt signs New Deal

Then around 1948, the Democratic Party was splintered by the Southern Democrats who formed a new party, the Dixiecrats, who were determined to protect state’s rights and protect racial segregation.  Having grown up in Florida, I remember these years.  While the Dixiecrats were short-lived (founded 1948; dissolved 1948), the repercussions were long lasting in the south.  The Dixiecrats eventually flipped parties and joined the Republicans.  When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he virtually forced the South to join the Republican Party.  Johnson literally said this in a quote while signing the legislation.

While we can talk about state’s rights and big versus small government, racism is at the very core of these arguments.  The party of Lincoln responsible for the emancipation of the slaves and advancing social justice has evolved to become the party of Trump, which believes that among the White Nationalists in Charlottesville, there were “some very fine people.”  They believe that there is a “brown menace” flowing across our borders from the south bent on murder, rape, and robbing Americans.  It wasn’t that many years ago that the Democratic Party in the south, dominated by segregationists like George Wallace, Lee Atwater, and Strom Thurmond fought integration with a passion.  However, eventually, the south became a Republican Party stronghold.  Democratic control was then shifted from the south to various east/west coastal regions of our country.

This is all to say that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has stayed true to a singular objective that can be traced throughout its existence.  In fact, both parties have evolved their points of view on a variety of topics.  The conservative Republican Party of small government and fiscal responsibility just recently passed a massive tax break by plunging us into more debt.  They just coincidentally gave the largest breaks to corporate America and wealthy America with but crumbs for the rest.  This may have helped the economy in the short run, but someone will eventually have to pay the bill.

Therefore, as labels go, saying you are a Democrat or a Republican, will never truly identify the totality of anyone’s convictions.  The dynamic nature of any party will reflect the beliefs of their current leaders.  Among our congressional leaders, many are like windsocks and change directions whenever there is a shift in the political winds.  Their hypocrisy is made even more apparent with the archiving of video by news channels, which take great pleasure putting together clips of politicians taking one position in one year and an opposite position the next.  Our current president has managed to make contradictory remarks on topics within the same speech to the delight and confusion of broadcasters.

“You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”  Bob Dylan

Few Republicans are White Supremacists or openly racist.  Many will merely tolerate that small group for other ideological reasons.  Perhaps they are evangelicals who place Christianity above all else and will just accept the racists among them.  Some may be fiscal conservatives that still believe the economy will survive a dose of freewheeling tax breaks.  They merely accept that those radical racists are but a fringe group within the party.

Democrats are not without blame here either.  We have those on the far left that might want to be fiscally irresponsible in order to bring about some philosophical equality among people.  We have centrists who have beliefs touted by both parties with which they identify but label themselves to be more liberal or conservative on any given day.

Video:  Lindsey Graham's shifting opinions on Trump

By observation and experience, it is my opinion that politicians have to “color outside the lines” in order to first get elected.  Once in office, their main goal seems to be another term in office.  They fight for constituents with deep pockets or those who may control voting blocks that will benefit their eventual reelection.  With this latter objective in mind, they must compromise their perhaps true beliefs in order to stay in the party’s good graces.  They vote like sheep along party lines and rarely argue conscience in deference to any party objective.  To members of either party, it eventually becomes clear that you can no longer vote for the character of the person in office but you must vote for their proclaimed party allegiance.

I can remember a time when, as a Democrat, I would cross party lines if I liked a candidate on the “other side.”  Now, I enter the voting booth and vote a straight party ticket.  I would rather be able to vote for the person but that is no longer realistic given the stranglehold wielded by party whips.

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature.  They ensure that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their constituents.  Whips are the party's "enforcers.”

Labeling someone a Democrat or Republican is only a generality.  It just indicates a general preference.  If you prefer chocolate ice cream over strawberry but will enjoy either when offered you should understand preferences as contrasted with a deeply held conviction.  As a Democrat, I don’t hold with some of the party beliefs but I hold with most of their objectives.  I would say that political purists are rare and those few people are probably just pliable individuals who don’t want to think for themselves.

We are now a nation divided.  We are divided by labels.  We are divided by ideologies that seem to be personally fluid and reliant on the strength of the sales pitch of proponents.  These labels, however, are rarely adequate to fully describe anyone’s true values.  You are unlikely to conform with every topic of your identified party affiliation.  While your core value system is likely part of your long-held belief system, political labels are dynamic.  Therein lays one of the many problems with labels.  While you must register as a Democrat or Republican to be allowed to vote in primaries, this shouldn’t always dictate your vote.  While I now am forced to vote my party line for individual representatives for the reasons described above, I still can individually express my feelings on amendments and other political issues on the ballot.

Buckley v. Valeo: "limits on election spending restrict free speech"
Citizens United v. Fed. Elect. Com.:  "corporations may spend from general treasuries"
McCutcheon v. Fed. Elect. Com.:  "aggregate limits on individual spending unconstitutional"

I find that political labels are like canine breeds.  The much-maligned American Pit Bull Terrier has a temperament described as:  "stubborn, affectionate, loyal, obedient, clownish, strong-willed, friendly, intelligent, and courageous."  I'm sure some will disagree with this assessment, especially those who may have been bitten.  I have a couple of these in my neighborhood who the owner walks off the leash he carries.  I get along with most dogs and find these two to be quite friendly.  I do however count my fingers after petting them.  The point here is that any label is a generality and there are exceptions to any assigned amalgamation of traits.


If we are ever able to disassociate money from its stranglehold on our political process, perhaps we can return to a time when you can vote for an individual’s character and not just their party affiliation.  I doubt that this will be the case within my lifetime.