NO LABELS NO SPINE
I admit it. I used to peruse the online singles dating sites (I’ve been a single lady for awhile so it’s not exactly scandalous), but I had some rules of thumb:
1. Never contact a guy whose main photograph is of him holding a beer and watching TV from a Barcalounger.
2. Never contact a guy pictured in a dubious situation with another lady.
3. Never contact a guy who says in his profile that his mother is the most important person in his life.
4. Never contact a guy whose photographs show him flexing in front of a mirror.
5. Never, NEVER contact a guy who, in the religious preference section, states “spiritual but not religious.”
Why, you may ask, do I take such a hard line on guys who maybe don’t attend a certain church, or who are unwilling to make a public statement about religion? I’ll tell you why. Because “spiritual, not religious” is usually an indicator that someone is reluctant to take a stand. They probably don’t stand for anything related to the core of human existence, our relationship with God. For anyone who is familiar with the voice and tone of my blogs, it should be clear that ReaganGirl stands for something and that she will settle for nothing less than a manly-man who does the same.
No Labels is the name, or non-name, of an ersatz Tea Party wannabe that surfaced out of the muck of political equivocation last week. No Labels has been labeled, much to their chagrin I’m sure, as “disgruntled Republicans” searching for a bi-partisan venue for problem-solving. It has been called “the Tea Party for the average American.” None of these really fit No Labels. A more apt label for No Labels would be “the First American Conglomeration of Apolitical Dreamers Everlasting, ” or FACADE for short. There, I’ve given No Labels a label.
They call themselves a party and on their website they spout a lot of hooey about bi-partisanship and problem-solving. Hey guys, no problem was ever solved by selling out to the guys who want to see America decapitated and smoldering. I am personally offended that they have used Ronald Reagan’s few compromises with Tip O’Neil as an example of bi-partisanship. They are so confident in the stupidity of people who go to their website that they actually purport; “The Founding Fathers had no labels. There were no political parties when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.” Breathtaking. Got news for you guys, there were political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, when the Constitution was written. The process of writing and ratifying it was hardly bi-partisan. Contentious, painful, and harrowing are adjectives more befitting the Constitutional Convention. And, by the way, the Founders stood for something. They all had in common the idea that individual liberty trumps the state, that government should be of the people and by the people, and that government must be limited in its powers to oppress and constrain. They were small-government, freedom guys, and they were, by and large, religious men.
No Labels uses the nasty Lisa Murkowski and the inept Ron Wyden as examples of middle-of-the-roaders, willing to reach across the partisan aisle. That should be a pretty good indicator as to the nature and bent of No Labels. Murkowski and Wyden are both snarling Liberals, they just have different letters next to their names. Maybe we can add a subtitle under FACADE; Basically Liberal but Too Scared to Say So Because We Value Popularity Over Principle (that doesn’t get an acronym). And they could save a lot of text and cyber resources by simply stating the truth; “We Don’t Stand for Anything.” There you go, No Labels in a nutshell.
I will make a prediction for 2011; No Labels will go away, and will not rage against the dying of the light. Not that there will not always spineless wussies (Thank you Governor Rendell) who want to make everybody happy and are more worried about congeniality than conscience. But No Labels is a puff of hot air in the maelstrom of American debate. It is an effort by some hapless feel-gooders to retrace the grassroots tsunami that is the Tea Party. But they can’t replicate the success of the the Tea Party because the Tea Party stands for the same things the Founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Liberty, free expression, self-determination, the ability to participate in a free-market economy, keeping one’s own wealth, and the vigorous exercise of religious faith are values that are still deeply appealing to most Americans. But it takes spine and persistence to cling to our guns and our God, and No Labels appears not to have the mettle or the patriotic heart of the Tea Party.
I am pretty secure in my 2011 prediction about No Labels. The culture of the West, especially America, is loaded with evidence that in order to endure as an individual, a cause, or a nation, you must have gumption and fervor. Western women, typically, take upon themselves the names of their husbands. It is an indication of commitment to their chosen mate. Churches have names and most religious folk are glad to take upon themselves those names. Churches that have a firm doctrine which requires commitment, time, and tithing have the most stable congregations. People feel more secure when that to which they are devoted to is built upon a rock. They want to stand for something.
So I will watch and see what kind of adoration No Labels inspires over the next little while. But one fundamental truth may ensure the FACADE of No Labels goes the way of the Whigs and the Tories, you must stand for something to be something (I made that up but it sounds good)! The Tea Party is here to stay. Conservatism is getting stronger and more well defined. Liberalism is getting weirder, and scarier. And, good or bad, they all stand for something. They all have the spine and determination to believe that they are correct and to say so. No Labels has none of that and it will be interesting to see how quickly the flicker dies in this dispassionate, noncommittal, naive, and pointless non-party.