Mark Yzaguirre has a great post on over at Frum Forum that dismantles some of the most used attacks against No Labels that have popped up in the last few days. For example:
One critique is that No Labels is an attempt at politics without parties and it asks the public to shun the idea of political labeling. This is a misreading of what No Labels is about. If you go to No Labels’ website, you’ll see explicit statements saying that No Labels does not expect people to forget about real political differences or to seek bipartisanship for its own sake.
What No Labels seeks is for political leaders and activists to approach public policy without the assumption that only one party or ideological group has a monopoly on truth, and with a temperament that recognizes such limitations. No human system is perfect, including our own political parties and ideologies, and acknowledgment of that is more than just civility.
Personally, I am a Democrat and I do not intend to stop being one for the sake of No Labels. There are Republicans involved with No Labels who feel the same way about the GOP. A certain degree of rough partisanship is normal fare in a democracy and should be encouraged. Good solutions can come from such conflict. An attitude that rejects the very concept of compromise and that sees only one party as having legitimacy is not to be encouraged, however, and is far more undemocratic than anything No Labels is suggesting.
There are certainly some substantive differences between what No Labels is espousing and what the two major parties have to offer, but right now it is somewhat perplexing that they’re focusing on straw men arguments.
Read more at Frum Forum [site no longer active]»