StankDawg wrote:
] My opinion may differ froms yours, but I can respect yours if
] you respect mine.

[ My concern is twofold... the first is that i honestly feel that the feeling you espouse here is one only truly held by a vanishingly small percentage of people. Most of the folks who post here are smart, engaged and well informed. They know the details and value the application of logic and reason to matters of governance. I have nothing but respect for this... in fact, i consider it to be the foundation of ethical behavior. I am, perhaps, overly cynical, but my experiences have not led me to be particularly optimistic that most people either value logic, or respect alternate viewpoints.

In fact, the right depends on this. The use of extremlely controversial wedge issues, ones which provoke a visceral response rather than a logical and reasoned one, plays into the response of what I think is the majority in this country these days... ideologues and pretenders to moral superiority. This is the crux of my second concern, which is that politics of this type leaves little room for debates. On matters of somewhat academic nature, such as economics for example, the respose can be more objective, less inflamed. But moral issues evoke a more categorical response. Issues are viewed as matters of absolute right and wrong. The truth is that most issues now end up couched in this rhetoric, and the result is precicely the lack of repect you correctly wish for. If someone who doesn't share my belief is my enemy, then reasoned, logical discourse is not possible. The framing of issues is a major factor in the way those issues are debated, and when framed as a moral choice, the room for dialogue shrinks, or vanishes.

A large percentage of people look for their leaders to have ideological certitude about their positions. The traction that attacks on changes of mind or the appearance of hypocracy have is evidence of this fact. But the embrace of certainty is itself a rejection of discourse. People who are certain of their correctness are neither compelled nor willing to engage in a debate, besides the fabricated theatre envisioned by Crossfire and so on. Of course, there are themes that I want to be categorical in a leader, basic tenets of behavior which are solid, but the expansion of that requirement to all statements and all behavior just demolishes the likelihood that productive debates will happen.

It's a problem I think will occupy us for a long time to come. I am glad to know a number of people who hold reason and logic above ideology and faith, who realize that being smart and educated is a benefit, not a fault, and who are willing to live and act accordingly. I'm disheartened that they are not, apparently, the majority. -k]

RE: Election Eve 2004