Just recently, the head of the Democratic National Convention was asked to identify the difference between a democrat and a socialist. The result was a terrible attempt at dodging the question, saying that we should focus on the difference between a democrat and a republican. I’m not pointing this out because I’m a conservative trying to ridicule liberals; in fact, it’s quite the contrary. I’m liberal, and I’m not going to rush to defend Schultz (the DNC head).

By trying to change the topic, she gives merit to every conservative that is convinced that radical socialism is taking over the country. So, naturally, every conservative outlet is rushing to cover the story and show the embarrassment on their site as evidence of the left’s radicalism.

The root of this problem is a big one: political identifiers. And when we talk about those, socialism is one of the most infamous names. For years, fear-mongers have been referring to the president as a socialist (along with a Kenyan, a Muslim, and an atheist). While they may believe that, the real motive is to scare ignorant voters. The term socialist has become associated with Hitler and Stalin and Marx, the downfall of all society, the loss of any and all individualism. I should mention that the president does not support any of those. The simple fact is, socialism, as a theory, is incredibly different than the meaning it has been assigned.

But I’m not going to try to describe an entire doctrine, especially because I (admittedly) am pretty ignorant of its core principles. The most basic idea seems to be that socialism means sharing, just on a widespread, societal level. However, if calling someone socialist is an insult, I would hope that this is because of a renewed McCarthyism (which is bad, of course) rather than an opposition to the common good (which is irreparable).

I’ve decided to believe the first option of the two, although there are certainly people who cannot fathom paying taxes for, say, the health insurance of others (and having others do the same for them). Pundits are able to get away with these kinds of attacks because of ignorance and blanket labels, both of which are bad. And, before I go farther, let me be the first to say that this happens with each and every political party.

The entire idea of political labels is problematic. To illustrate that, listen to the DNC, and contrast democrats and republicans. Among many, many other issues, we can identify differences in gay marriage rights, reproductive rights, marijuana legalization, immigration policies, etc. But right there, we made a huge mistake: by contrasting these two parties, we accept that all democrats (and republicans) are, as individual people, ideologically the same. Yet there are obviously conservatives who favor gay marriage rights, democrats that are pro-life, and republicans who don’t think all immigrants are rapists.

Our society is politically stratified, and that’s because of our insistence on grouping every stance as either democratic or republican. Of course, it’s used to make voting simpler; this candidate is more likely to agree with you than the other. But the better way to form a government is to be informed. We should actually learn who the candidates are, because one label cannot capture the intricacies found in an individual’s belief system. No democrat, nor republican, nor other party member, is created the same, and so believing that every republican is an old white man and that every democrat is a young black hippie is incorrect, if not damaging. If we keep lazily seeing each person as a stereotyped set of beliefs, it can be no wonder that compromise will never come politically.