Echoes of extremes: How labels influence political debate

Political labels such as “socialist” and “fascist” are seen as divisive among students, but they also fuel political debate on campus. (Credit: Jennifer William/AQ)

Buzzwords like “socialist,” “fascist,” and “woke” dominate political discourse, but experts say young voters are often misled by labels that don’t reflect policy. 

At St. Thomas University, students and faculty stress that extreme political rhetoric frequently obscures the real issues.

“‘Socialist’ is basically a boogeyman term,” said Laura Levick, professor of political science at STU. “It’s used to vilify someone as radical and outside acceptable bounds. The same politicians using the word ‘socialist’ are careful never to apply it to corporate subsidies.”

Levick also highlighted what she sees as a U.S. political hypocrisy: corporate bailouts are framed as stimulating the economy, while direct support to citizens is often described as promoting laziness. 

“Why reward shareholders of companies reliant on the state, but not subsidize citizens directly?”

Third-year student Kasey Goodine said these political labels are largely meaningless. 

“People repeat the word because it sounds extreme, not because they understand it,” he said. 

Goodine emphasized the use of empathy and fairness rather than ideology. 

“If a corporation can’t exist without a handout, should it exist?” he said, commenting on the state-supported corporate power when addressing inequalities.

Jamie Gillies, coordinator of the communications and public policy program, said social media and news coverage amplify these labels. 

“Politicians escalate rhetoric, the media reports on it, social media spreads it further and the cycle becomes self-feeding,” he said.

He explained that both sides weaponize ideological terms strategically. 

“The right uses ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ to attack public spending, healthcare, childcare and welfare. The left uses ‘authoritarian’ or ‘fascist’ to attack right-wing leaders’ behaviour or threats to institutions,” said Gillies. “Both sides are using labels to mobilize voters, not to describe policy.”

He added that extreme political language can backfire, causing people to disengage from democratic participation. 

“Many young people are not drawn into echo chambers; they’re opting out of politics entirely. Extreme rhetoric makes them turn away from news and civic participation,” he said.

Gillies also emphasized the importance of critical thinking and media literacy, urging people to recognize misinformation and disinformation. 

“Ask why a politician is using a term. Think about what the message is actually trying to do,  mobilize a base, scare a group, etc.,” he said.

Levick also stressed the importance of young people looking beyond slogans to the policies behind them.

 “Political science helps students distinguish ideological rhetoric from material policy outcomes,” she said. 

She also advised young workers to prepare for a shifting economy.

“Transferable skills will be essential. Most young people will have multiple careers and pivoting is a valuable skill.”

Both Gillies and Goodine said understanding the difference between rhetoric and reality is key.

 “Campaigns sanitize or weaponize words depending on the audience. Obamacare becomes the Affordable Care Act when it’s convenient. People absorb slogans, not policy details,” added Levick.

For students navigating an oversimplified political landscape, experts say the solution does not lie in the labels used, but in critical thinking, empathy and scrutiny of policy.