It is time to stop using terms loosely to label everything, everyone, and every idea.  Labels may be convenient, but they are often inaccurate and even misleading.  Among the prime examples are the terms liberal and conservative.

Nowadays, for example, one of the phrases widely used by people who label themselves "conservative" is "liberal press," intended by these individuals as a pejorative term to characterize the media as being dominated by people whose views these self-described conservatives consider to be wrong.  Ironically, members of the press are offended at being stereotyped in this way, but they are in the forefront regarding the casual and careless use of labels.  If journalists are characterized as "liberal" even though many consider themselves to be "moderate" or "conservative," they have only themselves to blame.  (A further irony is that those who choose to label themselves are guilty of a sort of self-stereotyping.)

The media advanced this kind of silliness when they began labeling states as "red" (predominantly Republican) or "blue" (predominantly Democratic).  In reality, all states are shades of purple.  While these labels may be convenient for political analysis, they are gross oversimplifications.  Using a similar technique to characterize individuals is equally silly, if not dead wrong.

One of my friends describes himself as a hardcore "conservative Republican."  It is quite true that he leans much further to the right than I do on many issues, and we've had some heated discussions about our disagreements.  Based on these disagreements, he might be tempted to label me a "liberal."  However, we often agree – often emphatically – on several other issues.  Does this mean that he is not as conservative as he thinks he is or that I am not as liberal as I think I am?  No.  It suggests that the labels themselves are oversimplified generalizations that fail to take into account the variety of opinions that we each have.

Labels of this sort are stereotypes, and all stereotypes are hasty generalizations.  Stereotypes are not just a way of reinforcing our prejudices.  Although they can be that, they are also a result of our desire to make the world less complex than it really is.  Viewing issues, groups, individuals – whatever – in simplistic terms of black and white frees us from the mental and emotional labor of making our way through a reality that is, in fact, colored in shades of grey.

Promotion of stereotypes is not the only reason why simplistic labeling leads to fuzzy and faulty thinking.  Possibly a more compelling reason is that the labels used are often not clearly defined.  Indeed, sometimes there may be little consensus about exactly what the label represents.  One may hear conservatives or liberals arguing among themselves about what a "true" conservative or liberal is; put the two groups together, and the disagreement about definition is even greater.  Indeed, even labels that are more concrete than liberal or conservative evoke disagreements among groups and individuals to whom these labels are attached.  Intellectuals can't agree on what constitutes an intellectual; Christians don't agree on what constitutes a Christian.

Another baneful effect of labeling is that it exaggerates artificial differences.  Thus, instead of encouraging harmony and consensus, labels promote disharmony and discord.  We focus not on paddling the boat we are all in and where the boat is going but on the false assumption that each group of people is in an entirely different boat and that their boat is not only headed in the wrong direction but trying to drag ours along with it.  We waste so much time firing salvos at one another that we never get anywhere.

Obviously, no label fully defines any individual.  What defines each of us is a vast array of traits (inborn and acquired), behavior patterns, beliefs, and so on – and no two individuals are the same.  Even when we group individuals by common traits or common beliefs, individual differences – sometimes very significant ones – remain.  Of course, the smaller the group is, the more likely individuals in that group will be to be alike with respect to certain characteristics.  So we label them in terms of these common characteristics.

Then, however, the label leads us to make a huge mistake.  We assume that, because these people share certain characteristics (or beliefs), they are alike in all or most others.  We assume that, because they differ from us in this shared and labeled characteristic, they differ from us in virtually all ways.  We are back to stereotyping and, worse, into denying that they can possibly have anything in common with us.  We deny their individuality and may come close to denying their humanity.  Having thus relegated this group and all of its members to limbo, we ostracize them.

Therefore, there is no point in including them in any consideration of what is best for us.  This "us versus them" line of thought is partly the product of labeling.  "We" and "they" cease to have anything in common.  We shall never, we believe, have anything in common with anyone who is labeled as one of "them."

Unfortunately, such thinking is probably part of human nature; it is something that we do have in common, but it ironically tears us apart.  It is something we must resist.  A good start would be to stop using facile labels for everyone and everything.