A Call for Reason

A recent episode of CNN's Broken Government series, Do Nothing Congress, made claims that Tom Delay was instrumental in creating the current political environment, through his escalation, to the expense of all else, of fundraising and re-election. Whoever caused it, it's becoming more and more clear to me that the center is no longer valued. Extremism, on both sides of the political spectrum, rules.

It's obvious in the media as well. O'brian, Hannity, Colmes, Krugman, and on and on, view the world through their one sided filters. They only nominally defend their positions - whatever they don't have a good answer for, they lob some controversy about the opposition into the mix, and deflect.

My personal conversations quickly lose focus. Discussions with friends degenerate when labels start being thrown around -- Communist, terrorist, draft dodger, incompetent, heartless, inhuman. Politicians and scientists alike are accused of being in the pocket of Big Corporations and activists are accused of being alarmists.

Most surprising to me, I've been accused of being both a Republican and a liberal (separately -- I don't think anyone's calling me a liberal Republican). It's surprising to me because I identify with neither.

In a recent conversation, I was told to get off the fence and stop flip-flopping. I suppose my opinions aren't written in stone, true enough, but I think my opinions are reasoned. I'm not arrogant enough pretend to know everything - so I'm willing to think about something again when I learn something new. Not so the case for people who have strong political identifications: Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," [study author Drew] Westen said.

Scott Adams had a recent post about what he calls advocates: Stem Cells. I think he's right when he points out it's not worth it to argue with them.

I read an article in the SB Independent, a liberal stronghold (which, curiously, endorsed Schwarzenegger for Governor over Angelides), which I thought would be appropriate to share: Republican Reason

According to last week’s Angry Poodle column, “True-believers, flat-Earthers, and witch burners,” employing the techniques of homophobia and racism, control the Republican Party. Independent Executive Editor Nick Welsh could not be clearer as to what he thinks about the party that a majority of American voters has regularly elected to office. May a Republican respond? It is counterproductive and beneath the stature of a writer such as Nick Welsh to engage in such personal invective, other than perhaps in jest—but I don’t think he was attempting to be funny here. By way of contrast, the better approach is to affirm the goodness of one’s political opponents’ motivations, while also allowing that reasonable individuals can differ in their views.

I believe that most Democrats are well-meaning on social issues and passionate about some issues, such as the environment. My view is also that they are sometimes misinformed on issues that, if they became aware of them, might cause them to reevaluate their opinions. That is the purpose of dialogue and debate: for us to reconsider our views. Voters who disagree with the positions of the Republican Party should vote it out of office. But we are not all stupid and bad (not even most of us). Honest.
 — Lanny Ebenstein

Would that this advice be followed, by both sides.