Thursday, February 03, 2005

"You represent a viral strain of political thought"

"You represent a viral strain of political thought," or so I'm told. This was told me during a discussion of Sunday's election results at Initially, I wasn't quite sure how to react; that either deserved a laugh or an angry retort.

As I've thought over it since I think this represents a significant-- if not 'the' most significant-- problem with political discourse in today's environment: the unwillingness on the part of some, both left and right, to acknowledge that political opponents hold strong views, many in direct opposition to their own, in good faith. In otherwords, their world-view sees circumstances, actions and events in a different way leading to different conclusions.

To be honest, from my perspective on the right I see this as more of an issue coming from the left. Daily in discussions on that forum I was attacked as an apologist and a sycophant (and worse!) because I supported Bush administration policies and actions. Nowhere was this more evident than the discussion of Iraq, pre- and post-invasion.

Over the course of the last two years, any attempt at arguing the Bush Doctrine or the numerous tacit reasons for engaging Iraq as a front in the WOT outside of the explicitly stated reasons surrounding the Admin's WMD claims, the response was fast and furious: There are no other reasons than what was given and to so claim is to embrace and defend the Bush lies about the war. If you believe that you were'nt lied to, you are either ignorant or a fool. End of discussion.

What bothers me more than anything in that debate is the message sent repeatedly about how the right is ignorant, foolish or worse. The argument is wrapped in condescension and rife with an elitist sense of intellectual superiority. Both of which are debate killers that spoil the discourse and injure the political process.

So what to do? How do we overcome such a barrier as a complete lack of respect for one side's views, not because they're wrong necessarily, but because they're conservative?

No comments:

  • Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels
  • Evangelical Outpost
  • One Hand Clapping
  • Camp Katrina
  • TPMCafe
  • Dodger Thoughts
  • Boy of Summer
  • Irish Pennants
  • tabletalk
  • Fire McCain
  • My Sandmen
  • Galley Slaves
  • Michelle Malkin
  • myelectionanalysis
  • Iraq the Model
  • Mystery Pollster
  • A Bellandean! God, Country, Heritage
  • Right Truth
  • The Fourth Rail
  • Counterterrorism Blog
  • Just One Minute
  • Broken Masterpieces
  • Kudlow's Money Politic$
  • Econopundit
  • Tapscott's Copy Desk
  • The Blue State Conservatives
  • Palousitics
  • Christian Conservative
  • Outside the Beltway
  • The Belmont Club
  • Froggy Ruminations
  • The Captain's Journal
  • Argghh!!!
  • Chickenhawk Express
  • Confederate Yankee
  • Reasoned Audacity
  • Taking Notes
  • ThisDamnBlog
  • Three Knockdown Rule
  • Dogwood Pundit
  • Dumb Looks Still Free
  • Unfettered Blather
  • Cut to the Chase
  • Alabama Improper
  • Austin Bay Blog
  • Michael Yon-Online
  • The Trump Blog
  • A Lettor of Apology
  • GM Fastlane Blog

  • Powered by Blogger

    Listed on BlogShares Who Links Here