It is very easy go all bi-modal on issues: left v. right, libertarian v. authoritarian, my religion v. yours and everyone else’s religion, Vorlons v. Shadows.
These are all analysis errors pushed through narrow rhetorical “pipes” and distribution “tubes”. There is too much signal lost in this process and one cannot make useful decisions depending on these analyses. Cue the Einstein quote about simplicity…
For example, my outsiders view of evangelical Christians is that there is some realization of this problem. The “What Would Jesus Doers” or Gospelists (my neologism) have figured out that there are other issues besides the “Pro-life” anti-abortion issue. Pro-life has been used as a narrow label for a very complex set of values and this actually, IMO, precluded Pro-lifers from accomplishing their anti-abortion or most any other mission. Some have figured out that they allowed themselves to be suckered for their vote. Their fringe view was never going to be approved by freely elected politicians. (I understand that 70% of the population supports first trimester abortion rights.) They are growing into a broader agenda. And a new set of leaders are emerging from this process. They are actually hearing the criticism, IMO, that if you’re Pro-life, then you’re pro- all life. And the “monolithic” evangelical movement appears to be fracturing and evolving. I think this is helpful. There are many common values I share with Gospelists. As they relax their grip on this narrow, restrictive label, there is more we can accomplish together.
Yes, bi-modal argumentation is “easier”. There is a false view, frequently expressed elsewhere, that certain legal decisions can be categorized simply. That a legal decision is somehow liberal or conservative. We all know this is simply not the case; the law is just too analog. (Yes, there is the claim that so many small quanta/states of the legal system appear to be analog while still being “digital”. Because the constituent particles of the law, legal terms and definitions, are subject to human interpretation by judges, I contend that there is no way effectively to characterize the law as quantized around a bi-modal distribution upon any axis of interest.)
We have seen this in almost every debate venue. Someone uses a simple mischaracterization of their opponents position in a short, not so pithy sound bite. They somehow think that simple labels from a simplistic categorization can somehow be used to organize a debate about complex issues. They shortchange themselves, as the Pro-life community has done, by embracing ineffective simplicity.
I’m glad we’re all hard to label. I’m also glad that that Biden, McCain, Obama and, even, Palin are also hard to label. (OK, maybe Palin isn’t that hard to label but let’s leave it at that… 
Labels substitute for respect for your colleagues and these serious issues. They are framing devices about building popular electoral advantage and not debating policy. That’s why I really liked it when Obama would call this stuff out as part of the “silly season” in the election. I would hope that we, as engineers, would try to reject simplistic labels and, especially, labeling people. They are not helpful.
Andrew
P.S. For the record, if there must be labels, here is how I would label myself:
Fiscally Sustainable (Pro- “Pay-Go”, Infrastructure Development Projects [pork-lite], require ROI calculations.)
Social Foundationist (Pro- Rule of Law, Social Security, Universal Healthcare)
Rational Policy Wonk (While the process is anything but rational, rationality does help policy be effective.)
National Security Bear (Not a hawk or an eagle but it scares the crap out of Colbert.) Also, a bear stays home and competing with the Russians in almost everything feels “natural”.
Technological Innovationist (All economic progress devolves from technological innovation and invention.)
Peak-monger (The 4 peaks of the apopcalypse: Peak Population, Peak Temperature, Peak Water and Peak Oil.)
