Labeling our own politics

When we identify ourselves as "liberal" or "conservative" to others before they have a chance to observe it in us ourselves, what is our purpose? When the others are of like politics, do we want to associate ourselves with a community? When the others are of opposite politics, do we want to gloss over differences without getting into the gritty details? Either way, I was struck by the way that Ben Wittes, a pragmatic thinker, tends to look down his nose at such self-identification, apparently seeing it as simplification of our views.

Yet I've realized that the reason I self-identify is in order to qualify some of the more pragmatic statements that I make, in order to fend off snap judgments by the more reactive of liberals. This alert gives them a heads-up that, in total, I have reached a different conclusion than my immediate judgment might suggest. Yet even this seems to be an attempt to evade dirty details-debates or not to lose their camaraderie...

Does anyone really know what these labels mean, beyond vague association with certain noted persons and policies? Is there any real consistency implied by "I am liberal"? (At least according to Bryan Garner, the Republicans are winning the popular battle because they are able to describe their values in two-word catch-phrases that are just concrete enough to attract constituents but not concrete enough to alienate them once they are drawn in.) I often find that the liberal or conservative position simply boils down to some basic rhetoric and to the convenience of the moment. It is liberal to oppose gun rights against state force, but to support defendant rights against state prosecutors? It is conservative to vehemently oppose abortions - any sacrifice of opportunity for life - but to support schemes that might deny certain poor kids opportunities in life? "Liberalism" and "conservatism" seems, in its haste to cut men into two groups alone, to set up rigid positions on everything from individual rights against the collective to tradition in general to economics - in ways that are not necessarily logically consistent (as civil libertarians, especially, have found).

Just try asking someone, What does it mean to be liberal?

[Digression warning: I don't quite understand, except for the vague suggestion that conservatives favor the small and localized (including individual initiative and goals) while preferring continuity with the past on a large, structural level. Essentially, these individuals advocate showing respect to society by obeying traditional rules, but stretching those rules in every possible way - and openly - in order to achieve one's self interests. They oppose any attempt for society to define what ends you should work for, or to compare you in substance with others; or of any attempt to craft "ideal" social rules that are unpredictable and based on any "collective" or abstract goals.]

In short, our partisan association seems an easy way to divide ourselves into clean camps, while evading the - sometimes significant - differences between our views and those of the larger camp. We seem to derive great pleasure from ideological company.

Or is there something about these base issues that make them fundamental to the human experience? After all, it seems that conservatives tend to prefer certain types of social services, while liberals prefer others. As a recent article in The Economist explains, Americans now are now dividing geographically along partisan lines. Truth be told, I would prefer to live in a liberal community, and this seems to be based on very real personal discomfort that I feel around conservatives.

But while this may be relevant to our personal feelings, partisan identification is not useful in discussing compromise policy options. I would argue that we should avoid wearing our politics on our sleeves at all - it's unclear when this knowledge will actually aid a conversation or relationship. It's better to just work out the gritty details.