The party affiliation of a candidate tells you what kind of appointments he or she is likely to make. Do you think that regulations of industry stifle productivity and damage the economy, or do you think that unregulated industries endanger the environment? Do you think that illegal immigrants are just that – illegal – and therefore should be deported when detected, or do you think that we should figure out a way to legitimize their status and make the best of what has already happened? Do you think that Iran poses a threat that must be countered before it is too late, or do you think that military action should be resorted to only after every avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted, even if it takes years or decades?

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties, for the successful candidate can be counted on to appoint to the offices responsible for answering these questions men and women whose views reflect the party’s platform. Voting the person, however attractive or impressive he or she may be, could very well get you four years of policies you detest.

In other words, policy differences are party differences, and it is hard to see how you could be a responsible voter if you held your nose at a whiff of party politics. If you are really interested in the way things should go in the country, come off the high pedestal and join the rest of us in the nurturing (and, yes, dirty) soil of the partisan free-for-all.

It is the case that truth is usually to be found somewhere in the middle between two extremes. Truth is not absolute, but relative. And the truth of a matter can change depending on the circumstances at hand. Aristotle was one of the first philosophers to discuss this when he came up with The Golden Mean. If you were to ask Aristotle, “What is courage?” he would probably say that it is somewhere between being foolhardy and being a coward. Like you say, it’s somewhere in the middle.

I don’t know why people delight in labeling one another. It is probably related to the notion of ego. I am this, and you are that. I belong to this group, and you belong to that one. Since I know that my group is right, that makes your group wrong.

The trouble is that the search for truth does not coincide with the designation of labels. Truth emerges as you look at the facts, and weigh the facts in accordance with the values and principles which you consider valid, becuase they have been proven over time. Labels are not so analytically based. You slap them on people because of a few words said here and there, and the superficial impressions you draw from those words. Labels have almost no correlation with truth.

So I’m with you. The hell with the labels. Look at what people are saying, and judge for yourself what makes sense to you. Don’t worry if your conclusions take you to a place that defies labels. We’re here to ascertain the truth, not to live up to the labels that other have slapped on our backs.