A bitch listened to Diane Rehm’s show on NPR yesterday morning and to the discussion of the political movement dujour, No Labels.
The No Labels movement seeks to reduce partisan politics and find “common-sense” solutions to problems. Supporters point out that tons of Americans say they are tired of partisanship and bickering and gridlock.
After a brief rant at my car radio, I decided to post about this shit.
The No Labels Movement is the School of Tolerance by another name.
Longtime readers know that this bitch is not a fan of tolerance. People tolerate a stench when they have to and they do away with it as soon as they are able to – thus, being the thing that is “tolerated” is not a safe or powerful position to be in.
I reject the No Labels Movement because it assumes that the principles folks advocate on behalf are negotiable.
Where we go to lunch is negotiable.
Reproductive justice is not.
Now, I understand that everyone doesn’t have the same list of non-negotiable shit.
But I urge the No Labels folks to consider that one person’s negotiable issue is another person’s life, liberty and happiness.
Here’s the thing…I’m rather familiar with the products produced by Can’t We All Just Get Along? compromises.
Our nation’s founders kicked the slavery ball down the road rather that launch into the civil war that we ended up fighting anyway.
Jim Crow was the result of a political compromise to “move things forward’ after the Civil War.
Reproductive rights found themselves so swiftly under the bus during health care reform that I honestly wonder if they were laid out on the road before the legislative bus got out of the Congressional garage.
A current example of a fucked up compromise that keeps on fucking would be Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
I could go on and on, but my coffee is getting cold!
Anyhoo, all of these examples contain a common thread…getting along and doing “something” tends to require fucking one group or another over.
And that is the giant unsaid in this newish No Labels movement – who among us will get fucked over in the name of civility.
Pause…allow to marinate…continue.
So, can we have a moment of realness?
As I write this post, the Senate is on the verge of calling for a vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Some may try to point to this as an example of a successful compromise…and they are wrong.
We arrive at this point in the road with the careers and lives of countless named and unnamed service-members blanketing the path we’ve trod…
…and we arrive here because of the failure of a bullshit compromise.
Do not let anyone tell you that getting to this moment came through anything other than struggle, activism and having principles.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, refusing to call it a duck doesn’t make it anything but a duck.
AMEN, Shark-fu! Preach sista preach!! Tell it out! I absolutely, positively loathe political correctness for the same reasons you stated- refusing to call something what or who they are does not change the reality. I once had a history book that called Sally Hemings an "unfree black woman". "Un-free"? What the fuck kind of word was that? Sally Hemings was in no way, shape or form an "unfree black woman". She wasn't "un-free", she was a slave. And she wasn't really truly "black" either, being three-quarters white and all.. sigh. Political correctness attempts to make things "better" and in the end, only minimizes and trivializes the pain.
You are correct that this action was a failure of the idiotic compromise of DADT but this was also an idiotic compromise (you think it would have passed had the house not passed the asinine tax bill?) ... the cycle continues.
I didn't hear the NPR program, so I'm not sure exactly what 'labels' are being referred to but, coming from a state where the ignorant masses merely check the boxes on any ballot which are followed by an (R)[and Walt Minnick is what passes for a Democrat], I'm in favor of ballots without candidates' party affiliation list - at least make the ignorant MFs expend some energy deciding for whom to cast a vote.
The No Labels thing sounds fishy. I wonder who is funding it.
I hear you about the tolerance. Every time I hear someone talking tolerance all I can hear is Tom Lehrer singing "National Brotherhood Week"...
-Doug in Oakland
So far it appears to be a Republican front group put together by those disaffected Republicans who were defeated or drummed out of the party by the tea baggers brigade.
The people who fall for the No Labels nonsense are the same people who talk about ideology as if it's a bad thing. As in, "Stop being so ideological." These are people who don't understand that having a consistent, coherent viewpoint or framework analysis is a good thing because it means you won't fall for just any old shit.
And this is why I fucking love you.
It's also a travesty to deny conservatives the type of society they want: white, conservative, family-oriented, heterosexual, sober and diligent.
I don't see anyone mentioning that however. They're too busy talking about what rights they want for themselves, and anyone who gets in the way must be unreasonable.
We are OK with people preferring different types of beer, music or decor, but why do we balk when some people say they'd prefer a society without the error spiral of the 20th century embedded in it?
@Brett Stevens: "Sober and diligent" are the last words I'd think to use when describing conservatives, especially white supremacists like you. What's with all this whining "what about our [white, conservative, cis, hetero, etc.] rights?" You people have all the undeserved power in this country, and you do whatever you can to make sure it stays that way (hell, even the current level of discrimination isn't enough for you), and you're acting like YOU are the ones who are oppressed.
Sometimes, you just have to call a pig-fucker a pig-fucker.
I understand what you are saying and there are basic tenants to each party that should not be compromised. However there are many other areas where a middle ground can and should be found. Alienating either side or a particular demographic does not help societal cohesion in the long run. I’ve heard both Bloomberg and Scarbourgh (sp) on the subject and they speak a lot of sense. Divisive politics is not the way.
Post a Comment