The Democratic presidential candidates fierce battle for the “progressive” label reveals the power of political rhetoric in the fight for the leftward leaning millennial vote.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s razor thin victory in the Iowa caucus last week has proved that the Democratic nomination is sure to be more of a battle than many had originally predicted. In preparation for what is to be expected a series of close primaries, Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have increased the heat, this time in the fight for the “progressive” trademark.

Not leaving a moment to rest following the Iowa caucus, Sanders took to Twitter to criticize Clinton’s adoption of the label “progressive,” tweeting, “You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.”

This statement, a reference to Clinton’s switch in the past months from proudly declaring herself a “moderate” to championing the term “progressive,” in what seems to be direct reaction to Sander’s rise in the polls, proved to touch a nerve in the Clinton campaign evident by her vehement defense in the form of a Twitter feud followed by heated dispute in Thursday’s Democratic Debate.

With so many more pertinent issues to discuss, why has the defining feature of the Democratic campaign been the tug-of-war over who deserves the “progressive” title?

Due to the increasing uniformity in American politics, perhaps a result of the political polarization that has occurred since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, political labels including “progressive,” “moderate,” “liberal” and “conservative” have the ability to define a politician’s platform in one word.

Labels have proven to be an example of powerful political discourse that essentially brand a campaign by aligning a candidate with a political ideology, and, by doing so, substitutes for critical thinking. Because of this, their use is important in winning uninformed and undecided voters, which as we’ve learned from Iowa, will play a role moving forward in the election year.

Hillary Clinton’s recent change of rhetoric demonstrates her fight to regain popularity among the leftward drifting liberals, especially millennials. Entrance polls from the Iowa caucus revealed that Sanders won 84 percent of voters under age 30 and 58 percent of those aged 30-44.

Clinton has made it clear that “this shouldn’t be a debate about labels.” But, with the desperate image of an arrow pointed at her Twitter icon saying “I’m a progressive, and I want to get things done,” it’s obvious that she continues to campaign as a “progressive” in an effort to pander to young voters.

If there is anything to learn from this election cycle, it is that the term “moderate” has become a label with pejorative connotations associated with overly cautious politicians who heed too closely to public opinion rather than their own moral standard. This has called Hillary’s past into question, as she has flip-flopped on major issues.

As a New York state senator campaigning for president in 2008, Clinton has been historically “conservative” on many issues. She supported the Second Amendment, defended her Iraq War vote and stood against same-sex marriage and issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — all positions the presidential hopeful has since swapped.

This stresses the problematic nature of abstract political classifications because, by their very definition, they promote a one-size-fits-all image of a campaign to ideologies that have no precisely defined criteria. Even Sanders, who is strongly associated with the far left, has been criticized by self-proclaimed progressives for not being aggressive enough on gun control legislation.

However, given that Clinton’s issues have not changed since September 2015 when she “plead guilty” to being a “moderate,” the wavering identity of the campaign demonstrates that viewing her agenda through either a “moderate” or “progressive” lens has the power to significantly influence how less attentive voters view her in ways that are unintentional to them.

Some have argued that identifying with these words can help guide complacent voters through the political process.

“The majority of voters don’t pay attention to the specific policies and agendas of candidates,” said Shana Gadarian, an assistant professor of political science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. “Labels, therefore, act as a mental shortcut, allowing less attentive voters to get a sense of where candidates are on the political spectrum and understand their relationship to one another.”

Political labels may be helpful or simply a distraction depending on the voter, and may not even have an effect on those who take the time to educate themselves on the issues. But the current general reliance on these descriptors highlights the larger issue of uninformed millennial voters, particularly because they are the ones these words have the potential to influence most.

With young people being the most digitally connected generation, having access to news outlets in ways unprecedented even a decade ago, there is no reason that political labels should sway our vote.

As a generation whose vote is a significant demographic, we must demonstrate that we dig deeper than surface rhetoric and seek out candidates’ policies rather than allow ourselves to be influenced by mere buzzwords.


Mia Tomasello is a junior environmental communications major at SUNY ESF. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at atomasel@syr.edu.

Published on February 9, 2016 at 12:58 am