Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you by attaching a scary label to an idea before you’ve examined it.
That’s become one of the oldest tricks in politics.
Instead of debating the merits of an idea, we slap a label on it and hope the label does all the work.
“Socialist.”
“Fascist.”
“Marxist.”
“MAGA extremist.”
“Communist.”
Once the word lands, the conversation often ends before it begins.
The problem is that most Americans couldn’t accurately define half of those terms if their life depended on it. Yet we’re expected to fear them instinctively.
Fear has always been politics’ cheapest currency. It’s far easier to convince voters to fear an idea than to understand it.
A 30-second commercial can make a word sound terrifying.
It takes a curious citizen to ask, “Wait a minute… what does that actually mean?”
Democracies don’t survive because everyone agrees. They survive because enough people are willing to think before they panic.
A free society deserves better than that.
Political labels have their place. They describe philosophies, movements and historical ideas. But labels should begin our thinking, not replace it.
Let’s start with something simple.
America’s political spectrum runs from conservatives on the right to moderates in the middle, then liberals and progressives on the left. Conservatives generally favor smaller government, lower taxes and private enterprise. Liberals tend to support a larger government role in addressing social and economic issues. Progressives typically advocate broader reforms in health care, climate policy, and economic inequality.
Then there are the fringes.
Further right are groups often described as the hard right or populist nationalist wing of American politics. They are not a single organization but generally emphasize strict immigration enforcement, national sovereignty, economic nationalism, traditional social values, and an “America First” approach to foreign policy.
Further left are democratic socialists, a relatively small movement of about 120,000 members nationwide. Their philosophy generally advocates a larger public role in the economy, including greater public or worker ownership in some sectors.
These are broad descriptions, not boxes. Most Republicans are not hard-right populists, just as most Democrats are not democratic socialists. Millions of Americans don’t fit neatly into any one category, and many hold views that cross traditional political lines.
Perspective matters.
There are ideas on both the far right and the far left that deserve skepticism and, in some cases, genuine fear. History reminds us that concentrated political power, from either direction, can threaten liberty.
The irony is that while the extremes begin at opposite ends of the spectrum, they often arrive at similar destinations: diminished freedom, intolerance, and extraordinary government power.
Which is precisely why Americans shouldn’t allow themselves to be pushed toward either edge.
Now here’s where it gets interesting.
Ask Americans whether they support protecting Social Security, Medicare, public schools, police, small businesses, clean air, private property, entrepreneurship, affordable health care, or fair wages, and you’ll find broad support for many of those ideas. People disagree over how to accomplish them but not necessarily whether they’re worthwhile goals.
Too often, we never get that far.
Instead, someone attaches a frightening label to a proposal and tells us to run.
Words become weapons instead of definitions.
The healthiest democracies don’t ask citizens to fear ideas. They ask them to examine ideas.
Does a proposal make sense?
Can we afford it?
Does it preserve freedom?
Does it solve a real problem?
Those are better questions than asking whether someone has successfully attached a scary label to it.
America’s greatest political strength has never been ideological purity. It has been choice — the freedom to borrow a good idea from one side and reject a bad one from the other, and the wisdom to refuse being crammed into the most extreme version of any philosophy simply because someone insists that’s where your “team” belongs.
Our founders expected disagreement. They counted on vigorous debate.
What they never envisioned was a country where millions would reject an idea or embrace one without first understanding what it meant.
Before we fear the word, we ought to learn the definition.
Then judge the policy on its merits.
That’s not liberal thinking.
That’s not conservative thinking.
Gary Horton is chairman of the College of the Canyons Foundation board. His “Full Speed to Port!” has appeared in The Signal since 2006. The opinions expressed in his column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Signal or its editorial board.
