GilfordGrok

Analytically Speaking
 

It all depends on what kind of label you are talking about and to what it is has been attached (and who does the attaching). On products, labels are good things, as they outline what the product is, who markets it, what it does, and the “stuff” that makes up that product. Often times, labels go beyond this factual information by including marketing suggesting that the product is the best for its stated purpose such as “Number One!”, or “Prescribed more often by”! Hype? Perhaps, but descriptions help - try figuring out what an unmarked box of “something” is supposed to be without one!

Labels aren't just for “products” and this will be proved true during the coming year. After all, given that the November elections and holidays are now past, now is that peculiar Silly Season that comes to NH once every four years – the Presidential Primary.

Yup, politicos of all stripes seeking the highest office in the land are marching to our frozen state (much to the dismay of the established media – “what, Ma and Pa Kettle's Diner and Sleep-in AGAIN!”). Ever optimistic, these high office seekers (who see the next President every time they look into the mirror), will trudge around our environs to do the “meet and greet” and participating in our vaunted “retail politics”. Putting on the “camera” faces and smiles to look good to the public and for the media, they seek to make the needed impressions so that they can wear the coveted label “NH Primary Winner”.

In doing so, other types of labels will be slung around like they were wood chips at a lumber yard. This person will be called this, another will be called that, and retractions, submissions, subterfuge, clarifications, changes, and the like will be come everyday fare. To what end? Obfustication comes to mind – using labels to mask what they really are about or to throw a cloud over where their opponents stand on the same issues.

Thus, many people decry the use of labels, simply because of the misuse of those labels during these intensive periods of politicking. Others are against them as this pigeonholes them when their strategy calls for being other than what they really are.

Yet, they do serve useful purposes when used properly. For instance, there is a move afoot in Laconia to return to the time of partisan elections. Already there are those that, almost in knee-jerk reaction, that have made it known that they are against this, as “partisan” has become a “word non grata”. Why? It is an identifiable mark, Democrat or Republican, on those that may wish to remain otherwise unidentified as to their political foundations (if they have any).

With non-partisan elections, anyone can run and no one has to declare how they feel on the issues. For example, can you tell me, of the eight people running for the three BudComm positions, who is liberal, moderate, or conservative? Or, if you prefer, Republican or Democrat? Or do they all meld into that “unknown” category, making it harder to figure out their stands? Without a track record to review, they can say pretty much anything that they would want while revealing little, springing a surprise after elections.

For some, a return to partisan elections really means a return to a focus on political party affiliations. In my eyes, this would be a good thing, as the “unknown” would be a thing of the past. By associating with a party, the public would have an idea from the get go as to how candidates may vote on issues. While it is always true that there will always be the exceptions to the rule, it is hard for people to be other than what they really are over time.

So why is this important? Not everyone is a political junkie, hanging on every nuance from a town or board meeting or newspaper article. However, they do have an innate feeling as to the general differences between Republicans (generally conservative) and Democrats (generally liberals). While there are wackos at each end of the spectrum, those a bit closer to the middle of each party will generally share an outlook with that party on what government is supposed to be and do.

So why would this be good for Gilford? With a “label”, one should know how a candidate would stand on most issues, thus leaving more time to discover the exceptions to the rule and how those may affect a vote for or against a particular candidate. Or, give one a chance to sharpen their questions for a given candidate to find the truth...