Label Avoidance

Comments: Arrrrrrrg!, Oh no I'm sounding like a Deaniac. It's no surprise that I think the Author is off-base in a major way, and that his rhetoric can be countered completely with common sense rebuttal.

In short, as an "any mammal but Bush" voter, I would say that as a conservative leaning peace lover, I can think of many "liberal" politicians who have rightly been singled out for their "liberal" views, causes, and voting records. However, as many other honest intellectual conservatives have explained in making a stand against Bush, the real person who has betrayed conservative values in our world today is GW.


Label Avoidance
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 10/14/2004 12:05:55 AM
WASHINGTON -- Where else but in an American presidential campaign can a candidate declare with solemnity that "labels don't matter" or, for that matter, with persuasiveness. When Senator Jean-Francois Kerry denies the significance of the "label" being applied to him, is he trying to pull a fast one on the poor credulous voter? Are he and his surrogates convincing when they insist that "labels" are nothing but pieces of trickery deployed by the hellish Republicans? Well, if labels do not matter, pay no attention to the label on that bottle over there, Senator, the label marked "poison," or "dangerous to nursing mothers," or "do not take when windsurfing." Of course, the label that the Massachusetts Braggart is objecting to is the label "liberal." For some reason he considers it unfair when his opponent calls him a liberal, though the nonpartisan magazine, National Journal, catalogues him as a liberal, in fact the most liberal senator in Washington. Presumably the National Journal had merely savored the Boastful One's twenty years in the Senate where he has been on the self-congratulatory liberal side of every issue. Moreover, does anyone doubt that when this long drink of water ambles onto a university campus or into a media newsroom -- say the CBS newsroom -- he boldly declares with timpani rumbling offstage: "Yes, I am a liberal. And proud of it, come hell or high Perrier"? Why is it that in presidential campaigns liberals, upon accepting the Democratic nomination, scurry from the label liberal? Actually, it is very disingenuous for them to object to "labels"?Labels are one of the liberals' favorite remedies. They demand labels on tobacco, ardent spirits, children's toys -- anything that offends their constituents and might assist in their election. I would not be surprised to hear that they had fashioned labels for basketballs ("Bounce With Care") or condoms ("Keep Away From Needles and Other Sharp Objects," "Do Not Use With Alcoholic Beverages," or "May Cause Drowsiness"). Labels are the consumerists' best friend, at least when prohibition is impossible. Yet now out there on the campaign trail the Democrats' cosmopolitan presidential candidate is objecting to "labels." He and his surrogates insist that labels are meaningless. It is another admission by them that the words they use and the positions they take at election time are unserious. They, who pride themselves in their high intellectual commitment, actually seem to believe that they can persuade voters that the philosophical and political positions they have taken over the years should not matter to us when we vote. Well, what does matter, the senator's windsurfing skills? George W. Bush's cowboy boots? In this campaign Senator Kerry has tried to reduce the issues to style and sophistries. Frankly his style is pompous and oafish, and his sophistries are unconvincing. His brand of economics leads to slow growth and probably high inflation. His brand of foreign policy leads to the United Nations where he admits he will take us for endless debates with corrupt foreign hucksters and dignitaries who hate America and its interests. It has now been many decades during which liberals have believed that liberalism is the morally and intellectually superior position. Conservatives are in the liberals' reckoning philistines, materialists, racists, and uncouth. Yet it has been at least three decades since a Democratic presidential nominee faced the nation and proclaimed himself a liberal. Does this mean that the Democratic candidates consider themselves morally and intellectually superior to the rest of the nation? I think it does. In fact they think themselves so intellectually superior -- and the rest of us so obtuse -- that they believe they can conceal their many years of liberal politicking from the electorate. Like participants at a masked ball, they practice masked politics in presidential campaigns. Unfortunately the American people are serious about matters of national security and economic growth. Faced with a windsurfer, a spandex-clad cyclist, and a potential bungee jumper, I think they will choose a leader. Someday soon, the Democrats are going to have to face up to the sham that is their kind of liberalism. They are right about one thing; it is unpopular across America.R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is editor in chief of The American Spectator and a contributing editor to the New York Sun. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute and the author of Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).