Healthy debate is a cornerstone of any democracy, but I dare anyone to find something healthy about a group of middle-aged men and women screaming about taxes and health care as though they were auditioning for Days of Our Lives.

Those who appear on these inside-the-Beltway versions of Jerry Springer (they both can, after all, fill up an entire hour with commentary on the question, "Is he getting it on with a younger woman at work?") have trained as vigorously as any Olympic athlete to win rather than inform, exploit base fears of the average viewer before they rebuke unfounded prejudices, avoid even the most straightforward question and insinuate that the opposition is full of lying, cheating scoundrels who regularly kick puppies, mug senior citizens and leave the cap off the toothpaste.

Wouldn't it be nice if within the university "bubble," a land that idealism hasn't yet forgotten (how else can you account for the number of freshmen who think they're still going to be pre-med by the time they graduate?), one of my idealistic dreams could be fulfilled ¯ the editorial section of the Old Gold and Black becoming everything those migraine-inducing shows should be but are not. A section that is ¯ you'll have to indulge my idealism rather heavily here ¯ a haven of integrity, brimming with thoughtful debate and well-researched arguments, not the journalistic parallel of two small children bickering in the backseat during a long car ride: "You're un-American!" "Well, you're stupid!"

However, there seems to be some as-yet-unrecorded law of the universe dictating that every year two columnists must strike up a weekly tête à tête within the OGB, and argue about whose political party of choice is sending the country to hell in a hand-basket, embodying everything that is wrong with America, orchestrating the El Niño phenomenon or similar. Three weeks into the semester, I can already hear the bickering in the backseat, this time from sophomore Doug Hutton and senior Jamie Kidd.

Consider this column the equivalent of my glaring in the rearview mirror and hollering, "Kids, don't make me stop this car!"

I am reminded of George Washington's warning against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" in his farewell address: "In those of the popular form (of government) it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly (the people's) worst enemy É It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another."

False alarms indeed. The nation's newspapers have been littered with headlines such as "Bush to U.N. ¯ act or U.S. will" (USA Today) and "Blood spills to keep oil wealth flowing" (The Los Angeles Times), yet Hutton and Kidd, two skilled writers surely capable of providing insight on any number of issues, found their attentions diverted from those legitimate crises to the petty blame-games of partisanship. Kidd's "Fear and loathing in the capital" (Aug. 29) and Hutton's "Political alliances divide" (Sept. 12) established little more than that conservatives are fearful ignoramuses so full of hate they can't even appreciate a fine Vera Bradley handbag, while liberals are immoral spendthrifts with Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book" stuffed inside their attaché cases: the stuff of a Saturday Night Live sketch, not thought-provoking dialogue.

And what has been kindling the animosity between these two columnists, anyway? Nothing more than semantics.

The Greek philosopher Parmenides once said, "Therefore all those (names) will be a mere word ¯ all the (names) that mortals have agreed upon, believing that they are true." Of course, he was speaking of far more abstract things, but I believe the same principle applies here. "Liberal" and "conservative" are mere words, hollow labels ¯ and subjective labels at that. How, for example, can the word "liberal" apply to both Ralph Nader and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) without its definition being made so broad as to render the word impotent?

Despite a lack of proper consensus on their definitions, these labels still breed stereotypes ¯ it is much easier, of course, to make all manner of inferences from a label than to seek the truth. I know some readers have branded me "liberal" based on my past columns discussing issues such as gays' rights, pacifism, animal rights and environmentalism, and therefore presume to know the full range of my political ideology.

They wouldn't imagine that I am actually opposed to abortion, for example, or seriously conflicted over affirmative action (not to mentioned rather annoyed by having assumptions made about me).

Labels become our worst enemies when they "enfeeble the public administration." Opposing "liberal" and "conservative" forces ¯ which have become practically synonymous with "Democrat" and "Republican" ¯ have made Washington into a battleground where political rivalries and alliances trump everything else, including the law, the will of the citizenry and the common good. Is Congress not doomed to fail from Day One if there are essentially two teams pitted against one another, hell-bent on victory?

So, if "liberal" and "conservative" lack suitable definitions, promote stereotyping and stagnate progress by emphasizing competition over cooperation, why do we embrace them and grant them credence?

My ideal government would have no political parties at all, but until the day the members of Congress show up on my doorstep and tell me to run the country as I see fit, all I can do is shun simple stereotypes and embrace rational discussions of policy as the first step towards change. Such discussions should obviously never begin with statements like "Conservatives loathe liberals because they take our money" or "It has been suggested ¯ though not, of course, by me ¯ that conservatives are demons born without a soul that hate anything good or right." They should identify problems clearly, gather facts for analysis, debate possible solutions and then recommend the appropriate action.

Columnists, let's change our methodology. Instead of asking, "What are the liberal and conservative views on this issue ¯ and who is right?" let's ask, "What is the issue, and what are the pertinent facts?" Note that I said "we" ¯ I'll readily admit I'm guilty of falling into the trap of partisanship, and despite how much fun it is to taunt President George W. Bush (and, honestly, is there an easier target than the man who asked, "Is our children learning?"), I know I can't set standards that I myself won't try to meet.

Besides, the policies of Dubya and his henchmen alone give me more than enough to write about (consider yourselves warned).

That said I'm going to pop a few Excedrin and take a long, hot bath because you kids are driving me crazy!