Manipulative labels = propaganda

In the midst of the Cold War, left-right labels -- liberal and conservative -- made some sense. In the 1960s liberals were generally seen as being for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam. Conservatives stood for states rights and fought against communism.

Now, in the House of Representatives, with right-wing Republicans having combined with left-wing Democrats to stand in the way of a massive federal program designed to unclog credit streams -- favored by the establishment of both parties -- who is talking the liberal talk? Who is walking the conservative walk?

Is it fair or accurate for an opponent of the proposed “bailout,” or “rescue,” to call the bill a strategy that is out of the mainstream because it's too liberal, or too conservative?

Forty years ago, it was useful to see a left-to-right political spectrum. In those days, segregationists and hawks derisively called their most vocal opponents “pinkos.” Civil rights activists and doves didn’t mind calling their most hardcore opposites “fascists.”

Then the Berlin Wall crumbled.

In 1991 a radio news story described a political brouhaha in Russia between the ascending free-market style reformers and the old guard, the stubborn communists -- who were going out of style faster than a Leningrad minute.

No, make that a St. Petersburg minute.

The report labeled those clinging to the Soviet system as “conservatives” and those in the process of sweeping them out of power as “liberals.” Yet, when considered in light of the familiar Western view of matters political -- capitalists on the right vs. socialists on the left -- the role reversal of this situation’s fresh context was striking and amusing.

President George W. Bush used the tag “compassionate conservative” in the 2000 election. But in 2008 Bush’s steering of the nation’s economy, his unprecedented accumulation of debt, have hardly been conservative in the traditional sense. Nor has Bush’s swaggering, go-it-alone foreign policy been in the least bit prudent or, ahem, conservative.

So, it has turned out that the term “compassionate conservative” was simply what used to be called “double-talk.”

Now we have a black man running for president, who personifies the progress this country has made in its struggle to overcome racism. Times have changed.

Today’s political issues divide along many lines. There are urban vs. suburban arguments. There are differences that split generations, classes, lifestyles and you-name-it. Trying always to frame such issues within a ideological context tortures the truth.

Worrying about whether the Republican, Sen. John McCain, is conservative enough, or whether the Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama, is too liberal, is a waste of time. It simply doesn't matter very much.

From where I'm sitting, here's what it looks like a smart voter should be considering: Which presidential candidate seems to better understand the daunting problems he would face as president? Which candidate appears to have the better plans to solve/cope with those problems? Which candidate is the better leader for our time? Not for some other time. Our time.

And, speaking of our time and its peculiar economic vexations, as a lawyer friend of mine said, “Whoever named it a 'bailout' didn’t do its chances of passing much good.”

So, once again, we see labels working to shape perception. Is it conservative or liberal to hand over $700 billion to an administration who spokespersons have been telling us for the last year the nation's economy is "vibrant and flexible" and "our banks are strong"?

In this election year, the wise voter will brush aside the manipulative labels and remember that neither conservatives nor liberals have ever had an exclusive on two considerations that always matter more than convenient labels -- honesty and competence.