Jonah Goldberg’s critique of the “No Labels” movement is a cogent defense of stereotype accuracy and a model of elegant ridicule.

Stereotype accuracy:

If I tell you I’m a conservative Republican, you’ll have no idea
what my views are on Buffy the Vampire Slayer or beef jerky, but you’ll
have a good idea of what I think about taxes and foreign policy. No,
partisan labels aren’t perfect; both parties have ample disagreements
within their ranks on pretty much every issue. But they’re better than
nothing. They’re clarifying, not confusing. In other words, labels
aren’t “meaningless” as so many self-described independents claim, but
meaningful. If anything, what’s meaningless is the claim that you don’t
believe in labels when obviously anybody who speaks intelligently about
anything must use them.

Elegant ridicule:

What no-labelers really mean is that
they don’t like inconvenient disagreements that hinder their agenda… When they claim we need to put aside labels to do what’s
right, what they are really saying is you need to put aside what you
believe in and do what they say. When activists say we need to move
past the partisan divide, what they mean is: Shut up and get with my
program. Have you ever heard anyone say, “We need to get past all of
this partisan squabbling and name-calling. That’s why I’m going to
abandon all my objections and agree with you”? I haven’t.