NYT's Rich on "No Labels" movement: "Clueless."

[SteveM]

As some of you are probably aware, a political group called "No Labels" has popped up in the media. Figureheads include Michael Bloomberg (?NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Joe Manchin (WV), Charlie Crist (FL), and a host of MSNBC "talking heads." The movers & shakers of No Labels are Marck McKinnon (of W fame) and fund-raiser Nancy Jacobson (late of Hillary's campaign treasury). Some highlights of Frank Rich's editorial in the 12-19-10 Sunday NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19rich.html?_r=1 "The Bipartisanship Racket:"

"It's no surprise that debut last week prompted derisive laughter from all labels across the political spectrum, not to mention Gawker, which deemed it "the most boring political movement of all time."...."The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking... Bipartisanship is equally extinct -- as made all too evident this month by the pathetic fate of the much-hyped Simpson-Bowles deficit commission."

Rich is even more incisive in this remark:

"Beltway conventional wisdom is equally responsible for another myth promoted by No Labels: that the Move On left and the Tea Party right are equal contributors to American's 'hyperpartisanship.' In the real world, no one could seriously believe that activists on the left have the sway over Democratic leaders, starting with President Obama, that the Tea Party has over the GOP."

Rich goes on to say that "kumbaya" mythology extends to the average Republican and Democratic voters, with some 29% of Democrats desiring its leaders to "stick with their positions," while some 47% of GOPers desired a no-compromise position. But most salient is this observation:

"What America needs is not another political organization with a toothless agenda and less-than-transparent finances. This country will not rest easy until there are brave leaders in both parties willing to reform the system that let perpetrators of the Great Recession escape while the rest of us got stuck with the wreckage.... Our political leaders seem more inclined to hasten the next bust -- and perhaps cash in on it -- than prevent it."

What remains for us to determine is whether No Labels is a serious attempt by the power structure to form that Third Party many of us have been talking about, which (presumably) will out-center the already corporate-centrist Democratic Party. Personally, I think No Labels is really a further crystalization of the Democratic Leadership Council which is evidently not satisfied with its side-lining liberal/progressive causes and politicians up to now, and is aiming a "finishing shot." Perhaps this is what Newt Gingrich meant when he opened a discussion on what would be a substitute for the Democratic Party. One thing is for sure: liberals, progressives, and the ever-mysterious "Left" are NOT WELCOME within the Democratic Party, nor within the Obama administration, nor within MSM. The question for No Labels adherents is how do you make a passionate case for: "So, I'm for, you know, getting along, compromise, no fighting, and like WOW! it's really, really AWESOME?" even as they gorge themselves on more corporate money.

________

On a side note from the same edition, Holland Carter in the Art's section had this to say about a flap at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.: "Adhering to a now-standard liberal response to right-wing pressure , the museum instantly caved and pulled the piece."

[FiveGoodMen]

1. The irony of a group with the moniker, "No Labels"!

I once saw a truck with "No slogan, just service" printed on the side.

We sure must be stupid!

[burning rain]

2. "No Labels" are basically pro-choice Republicans.

They aim for fiscal conservative hegemony while staying away from right-wing social hot buttons.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. That pretty well describes

the Blue Dogs, the DLC and a bunch of other nominal Democrats.

[burning rain]

13. Fiscally conservative / socially liberal is the dominant ideology among US media.

No surprise, then, that "No Labels" get such good press.

[Dokkie]

11. really?

Kinda sounds like pro war/bailout libertarians if u asked me

[burning rain]

12. I want some of what you're smoking.

Libertarians are no fans of the bailouts. And whatever the faults of the "No Labels" people, they aren't a neocon front.

[avaistheone1]

14. I always thought libertarians are not big fans of war either.

True?

[burning rain]

15. That is true, but libertarianism is not a significant strain in "No Labels."

They are all about fiscal conservatism of the business Republican sort. On the whole, "No Labels" is neither hot nor cold on the war issue.

[patrice]

4. Know what? I didn't get that memo from the DLC or anyone else. Posing this as an either/or

question, either labels or no labels, may be what the "movement" that you refer to is about or it may be a mis-characterization of of that "movement".

In everyday grassroots' lives, I would bet, most people, on the average, use labels, but are not enslaved by them. There may often be difficulty in getting past the most superficial labels, but my experience is that that is more a matter of timing and circumstance than it is whether most people are label absolutists. I don't think they are. They are label relativists in regards to most labels, depending upon the situation and their goals in that situation and depending upon the semantic constructs that characterize the situation.

I also do not understand why it is assumed that someone who puts people before rhetorical labels would necessarily engage in the false equivalency of assuming that MoveOn is to what calls itself "the Left" as the Tea Party is to the Right. IMO, because people and their actual experiences are the priority, they'd be less inclined to engage in such false equivalencies, so perhaps the real objection is that the differences between the two is not held as a static absolute value in service to _____________________.

Though it may not be true in all instances, if you're someone who places a priority on people over (though not to the exclusion of) labels, an epistemology constructed of direct human phenomenology will use experiential/empirical data, which is probably going to vary in significant ways, hence the different labels, but it is also going to be the same in significant ways, hence the desire to free ourselves from blocking those truth out by the exclusive use of labels and in that freedom acquire a more valid empirical validity comprised of significant similarities and significant differences.

People are, to some extent, verbs, the same sometimes, different sometimes. The recognition that absolute labels do not serve this reality is functional.

[SteveM]

5. Rich is essentially correct.

The purpose of philosophy should be to clarify.

[patrice]

6. In this context, I prefer empiricism to philosophy. What is clear about obfuscating similarities?

[patrice]

7. Not to mention the fact that resisting label-slavery is a Chomsky-ian concept, so if the DLC is

applying it, I'd consider that a step forward for that outfit and, at any rate, I expect the test of ANY label use and/or non-use will be seen in the empirical authenticity of grassroots efforts, no matter what the DLC or Frank Rich says.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. It would be great if they were what you are talking about

But they are just talking about being centrists. They are not meditating on the use of labels, they trying to avoid being labeled as what they are.
This is the same set of people who tried, back in 2007 or so to launch the idea of a 'cross party ticket'. Same set of reasons as well. Brand Republican looks ragged, so they want to hitch to another wagon.
While I enjoyed your way of seeing this, I suggest they are simply re-branding, and lack a brand to take. So if you will the label they are taking says 'No Labels". It is a group identity.
They should be honest and call themselves "Republicans Who Are Scared To Say So". This is not Chomsky so much as it is Madison Ave.

[patrice]

9. I think the thing about Chomsky is that he would say to know what labels actually are and

use that fact appropriately, don't let it use us. Obviously we can't function without them, the key is to not be a slave to them by understanding what they really are and, thus, mastering them for our own authentic purposes, rather than the purposes of others.

I'm not privvy to DLC mailing lists, but yes I imagine what they are trying to do IS more Madison Avenue than Chomsky. And isn't it funny that "No Labels" IS actually a label.

[bhikkhu]

10. They sounded interesting for about 5 minutes

NPR did a piece on them last week, and the part where they were a reaction to frustration with the political process was ok. The part where they will not advocate causes, but rather rate politicians and fund political campaigns based on the "non-combative cooperativeness" of the representative sounds just stupid. Ass-kissing snakes is what you get if you don't expand your principles to legislative policy, and if you do expand your principles to legislative policy, what you get is a fight like we have. The problem isn't so much that there is too much conflict, its that there is too little accountability - that people say one thing in public and on campaign, then say and do the opposite behind closed doors.

"No Labels" is just another way to gather money from questionable sources and put it to questionable use.

[Jim Lane]

16. I actually agree with this wisecrack by a writer in National Review Online

This conservative author titled : "No Labels: No Specifics, No Coherence, No Point."