If my friend Jaunice were asked to describe me, she would say that I am a 23-year-old liberal writer who is into alternative music and movies. If asked to describe herself, Jaunice would reply -- with a prideful smile -- that she is a 23-year-old conservative stay-at-home mom.
If I were asked to describe Jaunice, I would say she's nuts. Not because she is a stay-at-home mom, or even because she considers herself conservative. Well, maybe a little because she considers herself conservative ...
Anyway, I would say she's nuts because of her definition of me. It seems that people these days are so into labeling people as conservative or liberal, fat or skinny, alternative or mainstream, Siskel or Ebert -- and these labels are just plain wrong.
Take Jaunice's definition of me, for example. While I am indeed 23, and I have been know to write on occasion, the rest of her definition is not exactly accurate. She calls me liberal because I graduated from a school with a left-of-center reputation, and because I tend to be a little more accepting of some things than she is. She says I like alternative movies and music because I liked "Pulp Fiction" and own a Chumbawamba record.
But Jaunice conveniently forgets that I am also weary of gun control, that I own a Reba McEntire CD, and that I really like most Disney movies. Armed with that information, some label freak could call me conservative.
I think not. I am not liberal, conservative, nor moderate -- I am me. Whatever the heck that means.
Here's a question: What exactly do "conservative" and "liberal" mean with respect to people's beliefs? Try and define it -- or better yet, ask a friend. Their eyes will probably bug out, and they may stick their tongue out making a THPPPPTFH noise, but all those facial contortions will almost surely fail to provide an answer. At best, they'll blurt out "that skinny guy on 'Crossfire'" for liberal, and they'll shout "Newt Gingrich" or "Rush Limbaugh" for conservative.
These terms are impossible to define. You can have a so-called liberal who takes so-called conservative stances on some issues, and vice-versa.
That is why, in survey after survey, year after year, far more Americans classify themselves as moderate rather than conservative or liberal. Most people see themselves as not fitting in either category, so they claim to take the middle ground.
But moderate is the most inaccurate label of all.
I have never met someone who is moderate on, for example, abortion. Show me a person who thinks abortion is "so-so," and I'll show you someone who needs a ticket to the funny farm. It's that way for most any issue -- people tend to be for or against something. You're for or against a nuclear waste dump in Nevada. You like the death penalty or you don't. You think Cory Farley is wonderful, or in need of a hot cattle prod in his pants. Middle ground is nonexistent on most issues.
Yet, people insist on using these labels. I especially get a kick out of people who claim that newspapers, for example, are conservative or liberal. Ask someone what they think of the Reno Gazette-Journal, and -- unless they're in the small minority who claims to like the RGJ -- they'll say it is either liberal or conservative -- whatever they do not consider themselves to be.
In reality, the RGJ is neither liberal nor conservative -- it is focused on making a profit. So is the Tribune -- you'll be seeing our ads on the sides of buses soon -- and the Reno News & Review, which recently started running gigantic tobacco ads. Yeah, some papers may support so-called liberal causes more than conservative, or vice-versa. But for a newspaper to have a black or while political ideology -- that must have been one opinionated tree that the paper came from.
So in other words, leave the labels to the employees at Macy's to put on blouses during a While Flower Day Sale.
Hmm. I wonder what would make for a liberal blouse...
Jimmy Boegle is a fifth-generation Nevadan who defies description.