With respect to the little skirmish that has broken out in this thread.
I think that "names" or "labels" are a real problem of late (in some ways, always have been, but I think more pronounced as time goes on). We all throw them around, and in our minds we pretty much understand what we think that they mean, but how others read them is totally dependent on their points of reference, personal history, and point of view.
To me, one of the most confusing labels at this point in time is "RINO," Republican In Name Only. OK, I get the obvious part, a person using the label to describe someone means that, in their opinion, the person is not really a "Republican," but is just using the party name as a (most likely) convenient label. But that really begs the question, what exactly does it mean to be a "Republican" in today's context?
If I look at how the Republican party has conducted itself in recent history, then it would seem to me that a person like a Jeb Bush or a Rudy Giuliani is actually a real "Republican," not merely in name. So at this point, the label "RINO" almost has no meaning to me.
The same goes for a lot of the other labels we use: Conservative, "True" Conservative, "Tea Party," Establishment, and so forth.
I actually believe that these labels have become so laden with connotation at this point, that they are effectively useless. Sure, I suppose in any given population (this forum as an example), there probably are some folks that labels like "Tea Party guy/gal" or "Establishment guy/gal" probably come pretty close to describing his/her overall perspective on things, at least on a majority of issues. But I think for the most part, those labels are pretty meaningless, especially since they often conjure up a caricature of someone that is likely to be very exaggerated, especially around the edges.
Leaving aside the other main question of what exactly does "Democrat" mean in this day and age, just think about 3 notable Republicans:
- Rand Paul: sure he has been elected to the US Senate as a Republican, but I think <L,l>ibertarian is probably the most descriptive label.
- Ted Cruz: again, US Senate Republican, but I think Constitutionalist is probably more accurate.
- Peter King: long time Republican US Rep from NY, but corrupt, war mongering, extreme authoritarian is probably closest to the mark.
We seem to have here a couple of main camps that are usually described as the "Tea Party" and "Establishment" camps. But what exactly do they mean? While we could probably settle around a few main points for each, I think that the real meanings are as varied as the number of posters expressing opinions. Very individual in nature. That being the case, I don't really think that they remain all that useful (and probably cause a lot of indigestion for the readers and posters in many threads!!).
Without the benefit of actually knowing any one here personally (and not being a mind reader), all that I can go on when I read people's posts is my interpretation of the words that they have chosen to use in their posts. But, I think that all of us tend to "read a bit more into" others' words, we almost can't help it, we process everything through our own filters.
Because of this, I think that there are often a lot of extraneous (and very often, untrue) positions, opinions, wants, and desires attached to all of us based on our posts. Let me try to be more clear by way of example: I don't think that the gals/guys here that everyone assumes are in the Establishment camp want bigger government, like the out of control spending, and favor the increasing hardening of the soft tyranny that has taken hold. Nor do the Tea Party gals/guys all want gubmint to enforce morality, have their candidates/representatives making inane speeches about social ills that are of no concern of gubmint, or support an overnight draconian reduction of gubmint to a level that would paralyze the nation.
I actually believe that there is a different point of view that separates a fair number of us into two "camps." I believe that a great deal of the separation can be found along the lines of one's perspective on the following:
- those that believe that the current "system" is salvageable, using the ballot box, over time we can halt the decline and re-set the course of the nation back onto a more sustainable path... these are the people that believe that they still have a team on the field, the Republicans, and that by electing enough of them to create majorities in the legislative branches, and even regaining the presidency, the nation can be saved before it all comes crashing down. And because of these beliefs, we tend to pack all of these folks into the "Establishment" camp, regardless of how close the fit, or not.
- those that believe that the current "system" is no longer salvageable, that it is highly unlikely that the ballot box remains an effective remedy, that for all intents and purposes we no longer have a team on the field (if we ever really did, but that's fodder for another thread!), and that is no longer matters which of the "teams" are in control except for the most meaningless details around the edges, and perhaps the length of time that the decline lingers on. And because of these beliefs, we tend to pack all of these folks into the "Tea Party" camp, regardless of how close the fit, or not.
Yes, I've taken up the bulk of my lunch time typing this in...... I hope that it has some meaning for someone aside from my now hungry self!! lol
