Navigating an era of post-binary political labeling

Yahoo

09-06-2025

The traditional ways of labeling a political idea or opponent are giving way to a less binary approach. (Getty Images)
I best watch my language, because the world, as it has for a couple millennia, is changing once again. And the words and tools by which we both described and navigated yesterday may not be accurate or effective tomorrow.
I was reminded of this syntactic phenomenon last week after Nebraska State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha announced his candidacy for the U.S. House in the state's 2nd Congressional District.
I'll digress for a moment to remind you that Cavanaugh wants a gig in Congress, the august, albeit temporarily paralyzed body that — aside from expressing its official disapproval 11 times — has passed exactly three pieces of legislation in five months, according to LegiScan, a legislative tracking service that keeps tabs on such things.
If Cavanaugh survives a May primary with Omaha PAC co-founder and small business owner Denise Powell, he will oppose incumbent U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, who said of Cavanaugh, 'I personally like John, but his left-wing voting record will sink him in his run for Congress … '
Left-wing voting record? How far left? What is left? I'm thinking it's a badge Bacon hopes to affix to Cavanaugh for some political play with those on the, well, right I guess. The language, however, is too simple, too easy.
While logicians over the centuries have warned of the 'false dilemma,' the modern world, perhaps starting with 'love it or leave it' some sixty years ago, continues to use it with even greater imprecision. To wit: left/right, liberal/conservative, blue/red, et al.
The inexactness is the result of our more diffuse political landscape, in which affiliation is no longer politically de rigueur. More independent thinkers find themselves bumping up against true believers and political party lines.
Welcome to the era of 'post-binary political labeling.'
This new age of accuracy follows a series of language missteps in the ongoing culture wars, those tantrum-laden throwdowns, which continue to suck oxygen out of the political atmosphere.
For example, the word 'woke' has a permanent place on the tongues of those looking for a shorthand to describe what ails America. 'Woke' was the subject of this space when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis thought he could ride a wave of anti-woke sentiment into the White House. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, in material announcing his bid for re-election, said last week that among his accomplishments was banning 'woke, DEI, nonsense.'
Rarely do Pillen or DeSantis or anyone who disparages 'woke' explain exactly what it means, assuming, I suppose, that we understand the problem with wokeness. Or, perhaps, they just count on us thinking it must be bad. The result? 'Woke,' like 'fake news,' 'patriot' or 'terrorism,' is the victim of what linguists call 'semantic satiation,' which essentially means when we hear a word repeated incessantly, it begins to lose its meaning.
Of course, using even the most rudimentary definition of 'woke,' the opposite of someone being awake would be someone being asleep. Let's just hope none of them are at the wheel.
Any solution to our binary political discourse losing its precision requires an effort on the part of those making decisions. Chief among that crowd are voters, whom we hope employ more than such 'either/ors' as left/right, liberal/conservative and blue/red.
One of the great ironies of the modern world is that never has so much information left so many of us uninformed. That was the conclusion of a study by researchers at MIT and Columbia. The group surveyed 15,000 participants, giving each a true and a fake news story. Afterward, participants were asked to 'confidently choose the true one.' While 47% of the subjects were able to do that, even my math indicates more who didn't.
Living with and by democratic principles demands intention and effort. That's for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is gleaning the right information from words that run the political gamut from uplifting to equivocating to demeaning to honoring. The task can be overwhelming, so sometimes I take the easier route: labels — even when I know they tell only a small part of the story.
That may have worked once but not without consequence now. In the post-binary political labeling era — given the morass of bad intel, ad hominem attacks and an ocean of lies — all of us need to up our game, relying less on binary tags and more on actual, verifiable evidence.
Former CBS anchor Harry Reasoner once said that he hated labels, because they tend to group you with people with whom you have only one thing in common.
Good advice, especially if I'm trying to watch my language.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX