While I agree that the entire sum of a person cannot be defined in one or two words, it is an impossibility to present a dictionary to the public and ask them to read their record. Labels are shorthand. A cliff notes cheat sheat. It is the responsibility of the public to do further research if they do not trust in the assigned label. If they have no desire to do so, or lack time, this is the tool they latch onto. While not perfect, it serves its purpose.
I read this weekend that included in one of the compromises that didn't make it, was a provision to move one of the nominees to the 9th Circuit from the one that President Bush had nominated the judge for...
Wonder if they were trying to ship Justice Brown to the 9th instead of the more prestigious DC Court of Appeals?
A common activity on FR is arguing over the application of a label (e.g., is Frist a RINO?), and the energy spent arguing over application of a label passes for reasoned discourse about the underlying issue(s).
The same crap happens with other labels, FWIW. Like "filibuster." I agree, labels can serve good purpose. I just laugh when labels become a purpose unto themselves.