Dear Michael P.:

What constructive purpose do these categories serve in the present context?  And, Michael, would you concede that even if they do serve some constructive purpose, there is the real possibility that they also have a destructive side, which boxes people in and makes dialogue more difficult?

Update:  Michael P., you are proving my point with the revised version of your latest post:  "And, please let me note that when the story broke about the coup involving the leftist president of Honduras, you actually posted a reference to the editorial page of the WSJ (here)!  Talk about economic right-wing!!  OMG!!!" 

The label or category does our thinking for us.  We can dismiss what the WSJ says about Honduras without examining the argument because of the source - a right wing rag.  We can dismiss the investigation into women religious in the US without examining the reasons for the investigation because the investigation is being carried out by a patriarchal (sexist?) right wing hehierarchy.  We can dismiss more conservative economic voices because the Pope (formerly known as the head of a right wing patriarchy) is categorized as an economic liberal.  In each case, the categories replace critical reasoning, which could have taken place in colloboration-disputation with people who approach the world in ways that seem foreign to us.