> This is an issue that's come up before on this list and I've never > understood it, and your comments bring it to mind again, Kakki, although > I'm not just addressing you here.
What would you think is the genesis of an individual's actions to want to do something, for lack of a better word, "the common good" (support the environment, decry greed, help the poor, etc.)? Doesn't it first come from some sense within themself? I used the word spiritual broadly and do not mean to imply any particular relgious faith or denomination. I have always supported many causes that some would label as me being "one of us." Then again, my support for individual freedoms and protections may sharply conflict with that "us" group at times. So does that mean I then become "one of them?" > Do people really think that identifying with a political party means > that a person's brain turns to complete mush? I would hope not. But some people at times do appear to parrot political party, no matter which particular political party, talking points unconditionally and uncritically, and therefore, unthinkingly. >People identify with anything, including an established political party, because *most of* > the goals of that group match the goals of the person. And sometimes the goals can be the same with two different parties. >There's probably never a time when every single goal of any group exactly matches every > single goal of a person in that group. Sometimes, though, only a group > can create change so that identifying with a group can be a good thing. Yes. But sometimes a group can become a mob, too. > But to act like there's not a political spectrum, or that > people don't tend to behave in consistent ways based on their inner > attitude (which then results in their "politics" and a corresponding > "label"), just makes it impossible to talk about politics. I don't think anyone acts like there is not a political spectrum. I just think Joni, as a public figure, doesn't want to be pigeonholed politically. She wants people to see her as an individual and not be labeled with what someone else thinks she is or wishes she would be. > Labels, if applied rigidly (as in assuming a Democrat or Republican is in "complete > agreement with a political party's platform"), can confine, but they can > also enable people to have a meaningful discussion. Sometimes. > Joni acting as though there are no labels is just some more free-talking > foolishness (in my opinion), and is fine, especially if she's giving a > monologue as she tends to do, but would make it very difficult to > actually discuss such things with her. I don't interpret her remarks as saying there are no labels. I think she is in a way warning about the simple-mindedness with which labels can be used. I'd bet you a good wager if you spoke to her privately it would be very easy to have a discussion with her. She never holds back what is on her mind. I don't think she would necessarily sit there rigidly locked in a particular position, however. I think she enjoys the give and take of a discussion on any subject. Kakki
