This is one of the more frequent complaints I hear: that “labeling” people is just plain unfair. In practice, that’s often true. Yet as a writer — someone who has a vested interest in the right and wrong ways to use words — I’d hate to leave it at that.

The truth is, there’s a real problem with the way we use words these days, but it’s not labeling per se. There’s no way to discuss what happens in the world without labels — e.g., words like liberal and conservative which describe patterns in the beliefs or positions many people adopt.

Such patterns undeniably do exist; we see them every day. For example, it’s not random chance that people who oppose abortion also usually oppose homosexuality, while those who defend abortion generally defend homosexuality. In both cases, the views generally stem from broader worldviews. Words like conservative and liberal are simply attempts — admittedly imperfect — to characterize those worldviews.

When a man (generically speaking) takes offense at a given label, he may feel it’s unfair or that it’s an insulting oversimplification to sum up his views or motives with a particular word. And he may be right. But we shouldn’t pretend there isn’t another possibility: that a man may object to a label because it points to his track record — and that record isn’t very flattering.

Take the word liberal. It used to be considered a perfectly respectful, even admirable, label. But especially since 1980, when Ronald Reagan rode an electoral landslide into the Oval Office, not many people claim it any more. Most of the folks who used to be called liberals now want to be known as “moderates” — even if it’s not clear just how their views have changed.

What has changed? The reputation of liberalism. It once was known for things like (in the words of the correspondent I quoted above) “helping non-white people get treated properly (i.e., civil rights) and ensuring all people get equitable pay (i.e., unions).” But that description is several decades out of date. More recent liberalism has had different priorities: abortion on demand, abolishing traditional moral standards and family structures, raising taxes, expanding centralized government, pushing “multiculturalism” and so forth.

Calling attention to a pattern like that is perfectly legitimate, and sometimes you need to do so in shorthand.

The Real Problem with Labels

That said, however, labels shouldn’t be the beginning and end of debate. And here we come to the real problem with today’s political discourse. Far too often, words — labels — are used not to clarify positions but to short-circuit a debate.

I’ve already noted in a previous column that certain words especially common on campus — racist, sexist, homophobe, hatemonger — generally are intended not to describe but to stigmatize and to silence.

This business is deplorable and dangerously chills discussion of important issues. Yet there’s something even worse going on. There’s a trend which seemed to gain steam during and since the recent elections: reducing debate to a question of who’s mainstream or moderate (good) vs. who’s extremist or divisive (bad).

Words like that don’t even try to tell you why the mainstream is good and the extreme is bad. And it doesn’t seem to occur to anyone to ask. Wherever the mainstream is, we’re all supposed to be there. Whatever divides us — be it abortion or slavery — must be swept under the rug, and anyone so divisive as to raise the issue must be excommunicated from the mainstream.

The message is that not principles, but popularity is what counts. It’s the political equivalent of high school, where everyone tries to emulate the in-crowd.

Though it’s mostly liberals who used the tactic this year (Bill Clinton having been defined in the media as the embodiment of mainstream), it’s hardly unique to them. Invoking the majority to validate your views and banishing opponents to the land of “extremism” — a land so distant that we don’t need to bother refuting their views — can be tempting to anyone. In other times and places, conservatives have done it. I’m ashamed to say there’ve been times when I’ve done it.

But no matter who does it, it’s poison to any real debate. It’s also an affront to any cause in which it’s employed. If you think a cause is good, you should defend it on its merits. If you think a cause is bad, you should attack its vices.

Sometimes that will involve using labels. The important thing is not to abuse them. Words should be a means to advance discourse, not to foreclose it.