Left, Right, and Everything in Between: The Politics of Labels

When U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was labeled a "radical socialist" by her opponents, the phrase echoed across headlines and social media feeds like a warning siren. To her critics, the label implied danger and extremism. To her supporters, it was a badge of bold, necessary change. But what does "radical" even mean anymore—and who gets to decide? In today’s political landscape, labels like this aren’t just descriptions; they’re weapons, shields, and sometimes, invitations to belong. As politics grows more polarized, these words are shaping the way we see leaders, policies, and even ourselves.

Labelling theory suggests that society assigns labels to individuals or groups based on their perceived characters or behaviors. While it offers valuable insights into politics, it has criticisms, including oversimplifying complex ideologies and failing to capture individual beliefs or policy positions. Labels can also lead to stigmatization and marginalization, perpetuating stereotypes and discrimination against certain groups or individuals. Once labeled, individuals or groups may internalize the label and conform to its expectations, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where they behave in a way that aligns with the label. While these assumptions may not be entirely inaccurate, they inhibit the pursuit of human connection and can hinder the pursuit of critical thinking that truly informs us.

Whilst labels exist to bring unification and understanding, allowing people to work together towards a common goal, there are innate shortcomings. A commonality in the political discourse of many countries is a misunderstanding of the political spectrum at hand of what is considered ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing. The use of labels gives permission to easily dismiss and categorise another person. This links to one of the main reasons why public discourse is so unproductive and hostile these days: we are thinking about the political spectrum all wrong. Our society is under the mass delusion that everyone can be placed on a left-right spectrum depending upon where they stand on a given issue. We have become incapable of seeing a political reality that is multidimensional because we are captivated by a model that is unidimensional. In this new century social attitudes have changed, geopolitical power has changed, technology has exploded, the climate has changed, but what hasn’t changed is the need and desire to do the right and decent thing. To do this, however, we must move beyond the old labels and recognise politics as diverse and fluid rather than a fixed diagnosis. 

Another prevalent issue within labels and labelling arises with the ever present influence of social media. Media outlets often employ labels to simplify complex political ideologies or policy positions, making it easier for the audience to understand and identify with a particular viewpoint. Youtube has become filled with political commentary that often goes unchecked, conversations on social media platforms devolve into arguments and insensible chatter, distrust in traditional media has - and continues to - rise, and schools often steer clear of educating students on matters of politics. However, the use of labels in the media can also be divisive and polarizing. Labels can create an “us versus them” mentality, fostering political polarization and hindering constructive dialogue. For instance, labeling a policy proposal as “socialist” or “capitalist” can evoke strong emotional responses from different segments of the population, potentially impeding nuanced discussions. It additionally trivialises legitimate concerns about discrimination or injustice as labels transform into a means of deepening divisions and hindering chances of constrictive political dialogue. They dictate who is ‘allowed’ to speak on certain issues or belong to certain movements.

In recent years, political labels have become central to public discourse, often carrying more weight than the policies themselves. When Donald Trump was dubbed a "populist," the term was used by supporters to highlight his appeal to everyday Americans and his challenge to elite establishments—but critics used the same label to suggest demagoguery and dangerous nationalism. Across the Atlantic, French President Emmanuel Macron has been labeled both a “centrist reformer” and a “neoliberal elitist,”. In the UK, figures like Jeremy Corbyn were often framed as “far-left” or “hardline socialist,” which helped some voters see him as a champion of working people, while others feared his positions were too extreme. Even within parties, labels spark division—such as U.S. Democrats debating whether the party should lean toward “progressive” ideals or maintain a “moderate” stance. These examples show that labels are never neutral; they are tools for persuasion, often loaded with assumptions and emotional weight.

While they may provide a convenient shorthand, labels often do more harm than good by reinforcing stereotypes, promoting misunderstanding, and driving divisions deeper. For society to move forward, it is essential to recognize the limitations of these labels. People’s beliefs are multifaceted, and rarely can their values be captured by a single word. What has become increasingly overt is that encouraging thoughtful, open conversations and moving away from divisive labels could help foster a more understanding and less polarized society.