Whatever happened to civil conversation in politics? Why is it that normally reasonable friends, neighbors, co-workers can't discuss the election in polite terms, while agreeing to disagree? I can understand the passion involved, as well as the significant (understatement) and highly combustible issues involved, such as the war in Iraq, the fight on terorrism, stem cell research, abortion, taxes, Social Security, and so on, but it is ridiculous to beleive that the one who shouts louder is the winner. Reasonable people can come to different, yet equally reasonable conclusions. While one has to take a principled stand on the issues, there is no reason not to respect a different, but potentially equally reasonable conclusion. Does this mean one should compromise core beliefs? Absolutely not. However, it seems that failure to respect the other point of view leads to a degeneration of the dialogue, which in turn leads to a breakdown of communication entirely, resulting in the polarization I see between the parties and voters themselves. I may not be able to change your mind -- but if I respect where you're coming from, I guarantee myself another crack at the discussion, and the possibility of moving us closer together.
I'm a Kerry/Edwards backer. But that doesn't mean we can't talk it over...
No comments:
Post a Comment