I think that the labels are part of the problem. A common informal fallacy is "hasty generalization," i.e. an inference is drawn about an entire group from an insufficient sample. Personally, the majority of my political beliefs are liberal (Which technically means that I believe cruelty is the worst things that I can do to another person), however I would define my lifestyle and upbringing as conservative (I'm a Christian, I've attended two Baptist Universities, and I'm in a happily monogmaous heterosexual marriage). While I may believe in protecting the environment and anti-war, it doesn't mean that I don't also believe in the right to bear arms or the sancity of marriage. So, am I the exception or the rule?
The truth is every conservative and liberal is different in their own unique way. The problem occurs when we buy into the labels by either accpeting certain positions uncritically b/c they follow the party line or by reducing others to mere caricatures of a stereotypical political position. Power corrupts and these labels are used by politicians on both sides of the isle to divide and conquer for their own puropses. The complexities of an issue or situation are reduced, a slanted interpretation is presented, and it is labeled liberal or conservative as appropriate.
What bothers me now is that the conservatives seem to be the most transparent in their exploitation of these labels, although I'm sure liberals are guilty as well. They seem to revel in the use of Orwellian double-speak and it is sad to see people from my own community vote against their best interest simply b/c a candidate or position is labeled appropriately. Liberals have their spin doctors as well, but strategically they seem to be in more of a reactionary mode now after the election, rather than actively "wagging the dog."
