Like Button

Monday, November 17, 2008

Apply Label Here

You've likely heard of the Bolsheviks. They were a group of Russian Marxists that seized power in Russia in 1917. They were the ones that changed "Russia" to the "Soviet Union." They did so over the Mensheviks. What you may not know is what "Bolshevik" means in Russian. The word means "majority" (or, technically, "more") while "Menshevik" means "minority." The other thing you may not know is that the Bolsheviks were not the majority in Russia. They simply proved to be the stronger, louder party of the two groups. Further, while the Mensheviks preferred the concept of open party membership and favored cooperating with the other socialist and some non-socialist groups, the Bolsheviks generally refused to co-operate with others.

This is an example of labels that created a perception. Calling themselves "the majority party" and forcing their way into power, they eventually became the only party -- "the majority." This is a prime example of labeling that produces perception, but it isn't the only one. We're perfectly happy with this approach here in America today. Label those we don't like with a bad title and we'll make them "the enemy." Label those we do like with a good title and they'll be the good guys.

Take, for instance, the abortion question. We all know the two sides. Some are opposed to killing babies in the womb, and others don't want to interfere with a mother's right to kill her pre-born child. What labels are the popular ones to explain these two views? Well, you have the "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" side and the "pro-choice" side. See? Plain as day who the good guy is in this debate. Whatever you do, don't examine those labels. It will only confuse you about the real issues. The popular media doesn't want to label them "pro-life" because, well, that sounds ... good. And we don't want to know that they object to killing babies anyway. No, no, we want to maintain the focus on "choice," not murder. So we don't want the "pro-life" label on that side any more than we want the "pro-abortion" label on the other side. Those labels, regardless of how accurate, are not in line with the propaganda we want to put out.

Recently we've seen the exact same process in the same-sex marriage debate. One side says, "Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman." The other side says, "We want to redefine the word 'marriage' to fit our demands." What labels are being given in these two sides? One side is "anti-gay" and the other side is "pro-choice." Seriously! Those are the labels. And there can be no question, given these labels, who the bad guy and who the good guy is. "Anti" is bad and "choice" is good and any limitation on "choice" is clearly a bad thing. Again, whatever you do, don't examine reality here. It will simply throw things off. The fact that "same-sex" wasn't mentioned in Prop 8 in California or Prop 102 in Arizona is irrelevant. The fact that these two propositions merely retained the longstanding and traditional definition of the word doesn't really matter. The gay-rights side is attempting not to assimilate into society, but to change society's definitions. They weren't, in fact, trying to gain rights. According to the California Supreme Court, homosexuals already have all the rights and responsibilities that are included in the term "marriage" in the California laws regarding domestic partnerships. It wasn't rights that they wanted; it was a word. They wanted to wrestle a word (and its concept) away from those who were already using it. So to call it "pro-choice" or even "gay rights" is not an accurate representation of the view. Neither is it accurate to label as "anti-gay" those who wanted to keep the standard definition of the term "marriage" as it has been.

But, as the Bolsheviks have demonstrated, labels work. Don't bother me with facts. Don't worry about accuracy. It's all in the propaganda. The goal is the spin. If you can label those who are opposed to killing babies as "anti-choice" and those who wish to retain the concept of marriage as it has been as "anti-gay," then you can eliminate the opposition. And don't stop there. Let's stop calling Christians "religious" and start calling them "haters" and we'll work at pushing them out the door, too. Oh, yeah, labels are a cheap and easy way to change the arguments without even making them.

No comments: