When was the last time you found yourself thinking, “wow, how about that [Democratic/Republican/Green/insert your choice] Party, I am all-in on every single issue – they nailed it point by point – I agree with everything!”
We here at Only America suspect most Americans would answer, “never.”
Shoehorning an individual with his or her own personal views on a multitude of different issues into a singular, rigidly defined group is impossible. This is the essence of the “label” problem in politics and in America today. Identifying someone, or even yourself, by a label is no different than judging a book by its cover, rushing to unsubstantiated conclusions, glossing over details, … or just being plain lazy. It is the proverbial jamming of a square peg into a round hole …
What if, instead, every single citizen of the United States of America was simply an American individual? What if each individual citizen of the United States of America had his or her own opinion on every issue of importance to that person? What if no two people were exactly alike?
Oh my … how would we even survive? How on Earth would anyone be able to register to vote without being able to assign him or herself to a uniform and immovable group that is not truly representative of that person as an individual? I mean, just ask your local Democratic or Republican Party chairperson, they’ll tell you how wrong it is that we let people call themselves something as ill-defined as “independent.” Obviously, we jest … independence is encouraged here at Only America.
But, … so what’s the point here? The point is -- labels suck.
Yes, there are instances in which labels are helpful – for example, no one wants to buy milk at the store only to get home and find that it’s just cloudy, white water (aka, “skim” milk). And, of course, brand labels are very helpful and important – when you want a high-quality, American-made t-shirt with a cool patriotic logo, you want to see the Only America label so that you know it’s a high quality garment and that it is actually made in the USA.
So then, how can we say labels suck??? For the purposes of this Healthy Discussion, we’re talking about ideological and political labels. “Democrat.” “Republican.” “Conservative.” “Liberal.” “Cowboys fan.” Those labels ALL suck.
Why do such labels suck? Because simplistic labels fail to see the individual. No one perfectly fits a singular label. Instead of labeling people, we ought to take the time to learn where they stand on whatever issue is important enough to discuss with them. Labeling is just a shortcut that prompts us to make assumptions because it’s the easy way out. There is no short-cut. Instead of engaging and learning about a person, we identify, relegate, and dismiss. This is why the two-party system is so problematic. Maybe this country would do better if no one was registered as anything other than “voter,” and un-designated candidates were forced to appeal to undisclosed preferences of individuals across the entire electorate, rather than do their best to walk a party line while playing to those that don’t vote straight party tickets… but that’s a whole separate discussion for another time.
So, short of seeing each of the hundreds of millions of Americans in the world as individuals, and not as members of limited colossal groups with set positions on everything, what else can we do to avoid the problems that labels present? How else can we avoid the rigid black and white, binary choice our two-party system perpetuates? Are third parties the answer? Well, lately, much has been made of the “No Labels” movement, or No Labels Party.[1][2][3][4] Unfortunately, this is not a solution. No Labels is not likely to lead us to salvation. In Only America’s view, No Labels is … well, just another label … or, perhaps, a mislabeling.
No Labels bills itself as the “Home for the Commonsense Majority.”[5] The organization wants to fight extremes on both sides, to speak truth to partisanship, … to push our leaders to work together to solve the nation’s problems.[6] These are laudable goals. And, doesn’t Only America ask, “are you tired of the extremes on both sides?” Yes, we do ask that. And, yes, we are tired of the extremes on both sides. But we also want to avoid Washington, D.C. politics as usual – the deal-cutting between the two major party powerbrokers that results in everyone losing except for the special interests that fund the major party powerbrokers.
Is the best solution, taking a lifelong democrat politician and a lifelong republican politician, forcing them together, and demanding some output? Is a new law or new government program or entity that jams the most paid-for parts of the wish list from both sides of the aisle into an outcome the best approach? Does anyone out there think that’s how we ought to continue? But is that what No Labels is actually pushing?
No Labels says this about “Success in D.C.”:
“The two biggest pieces of legislation in the past decade — the 2010 Affordable Care Act and the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — were both passed along party-line votes. In the past, party-line votes used to rarely happen because our elected leaders understood that ramming through huge societal changes with little to no buy-in from the minority party was a recipe for endless discord and division. A situation that we find ourselves in today. The most consequential and durable changes in America have happened when Democrats and Republicans sat down together and hashed out a deal. We know that these debates are tough and that passions run deep on both sides of the aisle, but America’s greatest leaders need to know they were elected to do a job – and that job is to pass laws and make changes that can make America better than it is today. Almost every landmark achievement in the 20th century was passed this way.”[7]
What’s wrong with this approach? How could you complain about this approach? Isn’t this exactly what Only America espouses? Finding common ground … Yes, Only America does truly believe … Everything Good Starts With Finding Common Ground. But that is not what No Labels is talking about. Not exactly. And here is what we believe is wrong with the No Labels approach.
First, combining a politician beholden to the Democratic Party and a politician beholden to the Republican Party does not necessarily balance the two sides, and does not automatically equate to a middle ground or necessitate “commonsense.” As is often said, commonsense is not all that common. Moreover, commonsense is often as unique as the perspective from which it originates.[8] If you look at the roster of politicians and businesspeople involved in No Labels leadership, you’ll certainly find people on both sides of the aisle.[9] There are certainly successful people involved, and we're sure these are good, well-intentioned people, too. This doesn’t necessarily mean that results will be successful and good. But wait – isn’t this “labeling” people? Defining them by the fact that they are a Democrat Senator or a Republican Congressperson? It would be, if we were defining them. We’re not. We are simply making the point that claiming that the combination of someone “on that side of the aisle” with “someone on the other side of the aisle” will result in a good, successful, middle ground being reached is just as presumptive, and just as dangerous, as assuming someone agrees with you because you’re both members of the same party. This is not to say, a lifelong party member who rose to his or her position of power by toeing the party line won't be inflexible and continue to simply push the party’s positions, but for the backroom quid pro quo deals that pass for “compromise” in D.C. We’re just not assuming that is true simply because they are labeled Democrat or Republican, just as we will not assume their combination balances each other to reach a commonsense middle ground.
Second, we here at Only America bristle at the notion that politicians must pass laws to “do their job” … sometimes NOT passing a law is the most commonsense result. Sometimes repealing a law would be the most commonsense result. Maybe it’s been so long since anyone in the District of Columbia exercised restraint or abided by anything resembling a mind your own business mantra that the idea that not everything needs to be legislated has become as foreign as the idea of fiscal control. To be clear, this is not a small government vs. big government argument, which is a whole other discussion all together … This is more precisely a “less federal government” discussion. Maybe not everything needs to be addressed and handled by the federal government? Maybe some things ought to be decided on a more local level … Maybe federalism works best when the powers of the federal government are limited? The Founding Fathers should have written that into the U.S. Constitution ...[10]
So, is No Labels a bad idea? Is trying to find middle ground solutions a bad idea? No, of course not. Anything that challenges the status quo can’t be all bad, but what is No Labels really challenging? The cynic and the skeptic might be inclined to believe that No Labels is just an effort to “bridge the divide,” get everyone to simmer down, and help us forget that the polarization of Democrat vs. Republican and the two-party system are in large part why we are where we are. Then it becomes much easier to revert to the status quo … the Democrat Party and the Republican Party want nothing more than to always be THE two parties. So, convincing everyone they can work together, and that it’s all good, for all Americans, benefits only … the Democrat and Republican parties.
The problem with labeling is pervasive. It impacts all parties and all viewpoints. Just look at the Libertarian Party’s recent nomination of Chase Oliver. Chase Oliver, within days of becoming the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, has already been labeled by mainstream media as “on the left” of the Libertarian party.[11] Why? Well, from a position standpoint, he has been labeled “left” because he doesn’t think “Drag Queen Story Hour” is a bad thing for kids, he wants certain types of qualified immunity for law enforcement removed, and he is a proponent of making immigration easier and legalizing many immigrants already here illegally. So, one could consider someone with these viewpoints “left of center” … depending on where you define center. However, Chase Oliver is also a defender of the 2nd Amendment. He wants to decrease federal spending and has said he would never approve a budget that isn’t balanced, regardless of whether that would result in a government shutdown. These are arguably “right of center” ideas. He is also a non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy issues. That is very much a “libertarian” idea. So, is Chase Oliver a leftist? A right-winger? Is he a Libertarian? How about this – forget the labels!!! Chase Oliver is an American running for president of the United States, and he has opinions on various issues. If you’d like to learn more and consider his candidacy, do your own investigation, consume information from multiple sources and determine what is most important to you. Maybe his combination of gun rights and limited federal spending outweigh his position on some social issues … that is an individual decision!
No Labels appeared to earnestly want to nominate a presidential candidate to run under the No Labels’ “Unity ticket” moniker for the 2024 election. According to their website, No Labels decided there was no candidate they could label, “No Labels.” At least no candidate they felt was a viable winning candidate. And so, they decided they will just “stand down” and continue to represent America’s commonsense majority[12] … Not the majority, the commonsense majority. See how they labeled it? Just calling something commonsense doesn’t make it commonsense.
No Labels has many politicians “on board” who haven’t shied away from rocking the boat of their own party. For example, Senator Joe Manchin (D – W.Va.) is a member of the No Labels’ Problem Solvers Caucus. Senator Susan Collins (R – ME) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I – AZ) are also members of the Caucus, as are Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R – PA) and Josh Gottheimer (D – NJ). Are none of these Congresspeople “viable” candidates? Certainly, at a minimum, they offer an alternative to the two current candidates, but what they all are is LABELED! None of these politicians represents a commonsense middle ground – they are members of their parties and they got to the positions they’re in with the support of, and a pledge to, their respective parties.[13] Maybe if they all denounced their party affiliation and ran as independents delineating their positions on each issue separate and independent from any prior party affiliation, we might take their “No Label” status more seriously.
This is the point – if you use labels, you can’t claim to be the party of no labels … and no name removes the simple fact that these politicians are members of, and were elected as, major party candidates. Does this mean they can’t have honest debates and find common ground among their peers? Of course not. But it does not remove the need to have those discussions, to hear their positions, to engage these candidates in Healthy Discussions. Simply wanting to find solutions and trying to do so by lining up one Democrat next to one Republican and forcing an outcome does not necessitate a solution that is commonsensical and middle of the road …
We get it … using labels is the easy thing to do. We use labels to make things simpler. Mr. Vernon saw each member of the Breakfast Club as he wanted to see them, “in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions” … the way they saw each other. The problem is, not everything is simple. Some things deserve more. When we actually spend some time, when we open up, when we actually try to learn about someone, “we [find] out that each one of us is a brain, an athlete, a princess, a basket case and a criminal.”
Do our country, our future and our impact on every generation to come deserve more? We think so. Make every effort to resist the urge to simplify people and ideas to labels. Engage, listen, and have a discussion. Learn about people as individuals. You never know what you’ll learn … There are no short-cuts.
[1] Corujo, C., “Social welfare organization or political party? Why No Labels may need a label.”, CBS News, February 10, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-no-labels-a-political-party-or-social-welfare-organization/ (Accessed May 24, 2024).
[2] Burns, A., “Here’s Who No Labels Should Actually Nominate.” Politico; Magazine, April 3, 2024 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/31/heres-who-no-labels-should-actually-nominate-00149215. (Accessed May 25, 2024).
[3] Zurcher, A., “No Labels: Why an independent group won’t run a US presidential ticket in 2024.” BBC News, April 4, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68737720 (Accessed May 25, 2024).
[4] Seitz-Wald, A., “Inside the secret battle to stop No Labels.” NBC News April 15, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/no-labels-third-way-secret-war-stop-rcna147335 (Accessed May 24, 2024).
[5] The “No Labels” Website, www.nolabels.org (Accessed May 24, 2024)
[6] The “No Labels” Website, “About Us” Page, www.nolabels.org/about-us/ (Accessed May 24, 2024).
[7] The “No Labels Website,” “What Success Looks Like Page” https://www.nolabels.org/what-success-looks-like-in-dc (Accessed May 24, 2024)
[8] Consider a child that grows up in the country or on a farm, and a child that grows up in the city. Each may have bucketloads of commonsense, but they might not know a single thing in common!
[9] The “No Labels Website,” Meet the Team page, https://www.nolabels.org/meettheteam (Accessed May 24, 2024).
[10] Only America is clearly being sarcastic here, and while we recognize the vast power-expanding impact U.S. Supreme Court cases have had on the scope of federal power in terms of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, etc., and the power of the purse-strings in general … we are technically a federal system wherein the federal government has specific, enumerated powers … and well, there’s that whole 10th Amendment thing … feel free to do your own Constitutional research on these topics.
[11] Bickerton, J., “Chase Oliver Could Be a Blessing for Donald Trump.” Newsweek, May 29, 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/chase-oliver-could-blessing-donald-trump-1905427 (Accessed May 29, 20204).
[12] The “No Labels Website,” 2024 Ballot Initiative Page, https://www.nolabels.org/no-labels-2024-ballot-project (Accessed May 24, 2024).
[13] Only America clearly acknowledges that Senator Sinema is now “Independent,” but we are not certain we can disconnect her from her Democrat party history. As mentioned previously, simply calling yourself Democrat, Republican or Independent doesn’t make it true. As of this publication date, we are not inclined to label Senator Sinema one way or the other.