The debate over labels that may be — perhaps should be — of minor importance in political and social thought has vexed me regularly. The need to define certain positions as belonging to one camp or another seems quite important to most people. Categorizing things makes people feel they have a handle on them. Maybe this is human nature, but it gets in the way, I fear, of understanding the true nature of things.

In particular, I am vexed by the plethora of labels attached to various political positions: pro-America = Right; anti-free-market = Left; pro-personal-liberties = liberal; pro-tough-laws = conservative; pro-protecting-the-environment = Left. The list could go on for paragraphs.

The danger of these labels is that people feel compelled to put themselves into one camp or another. Once this is done, people further feel compelled to fit the belief system of their adopted camp — at least publicly. Thus you have columnists and others defending positions and narrowing their understanding of issues to fit their role.

The biggest casualty of all this is that it reduces the chance of coming to a well reasoned compromise on important issues. But it also does damage at the personal level. People are confused and distressed by what they perceive as inner "conflicts" based on differences they have with their ideological camp. If they were able to accept that their personal set of beliefs was legitimate and potentially consistent, even though it didn't match any …

(more)