Are you ever baffled that perfectly intelligent, well-meaning friends see things very differently? Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, explains why in his new book, “The Righteous Mind — Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” His research has important implications for our personal lives and national politics.
Haidt argues that our political and religious views are based on our sense of morality, but that “morality binds and blinds.” It can bring us together for the common good but also prevent us from seeing beyond the views of “our side.” First of all, there is no one morality for all people at all times and in all places.
We have developed as a species to be naturally selfish (like chimpanzees) and groupish (like bees), and we are able to jump back and forth intellectually and intuitively, depending on the circumstances. We each have a propensity within our genes to be outgoing or reserved, which affects the way we are seen and treated at home, school, work and in society — and whether we end up a flaming liberal, bedrock conservative or something in between.
We develop our sense of morality through reasoning (an intellectual pursuit of truth) and intuition (an emotional gut feeling that also involves some reasoning formed by experience). Liberals (most Democrats) relate more to reasoning, whereas conservatives (most Republicans) relate more to intuition. We all think we make reasoned judgments, but Haidt says, “Reasoning is like a small rider on a large elephant (intuition).” The rider doesn’t really lead with reasoned truth but merely justifies the direction the elephant has already decided by instinct. We often search for truth only long enough to find evidence that supports our view.
Then we harden our position on such things as global warming. With the reach and speed of the Internet, we can find evidence to support almost anything.
We base our moral judgments on six factors: caring, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. We all highly value caring, liberty and fairness, but conservatives value loyalty, authority and sanctity more than liberals. So Democratic appeals often concentrate on the first three factors, while Republicans work all six, and thus often prevail. Conservatives often talk about loyalty, law and order, and the sanctity of the flag, family, marriage and country, etc., while liberals take a more open, “world” view of each. (Think of the Baptist versus Unitarian churches.) We all believe in fairness, but for liberals, it often means helping the less fortunate, while to conservatives, it means earning what you get. Here is an opportunity for common ground, as both sides should agree that some people are ill, handicapped, unemployed, etc., through no fault of their own and really do deserve our help, at least temporarily.
Because of our selfish nature, we immediately go into defense mode whenever criticized, and we tune out what is being said. Yet, because we are also groupish, we will sometimes modify our views for the good of the tribe, especially if we put a premium on loyalty, authority and sanctity. In this way, patriotism and religion can be stabilizing forces in society, but we are not as easily persuaded by people outside our group. For example, President Obama is not likely to win over intuitive conservatives with professorial logic, but Republicans can often prevail without any solid facts.
In summary, none of us can be right or have everything we want all the time, nor do we have to sacrifice our core beliefs. We do have to understand and respect our differences if we’re going to move this country forward. We also have to accept that compromise is the way things get done in a democratic society. With a declining sense of community in Washington, it’s too easy to stick with tribal polarization and demonize the other side. This may be understandable, but it is not acceptable, and we have to change it. We could start by opening our own righteous minds to other legitimate points of view.
David Estey is a Belfast artist and retired Mid-Atlantic manager of IRS public affairs.
The author forgets a very important issue. Either your pro America and freedom or your not and you enforce a more socialist agenda like tax those that do and give to those that do not.
Huh?
HUH? POINT? YOU DON’T SEE IT? oh well, then continue to not………………….zzz..
Maine_gun_guy says simplistically, “You’re either pro America and freedom or your (sic) not…” Simply way, way too simplistic.
“and you enforce (enforce?) a socialist agenda (there are no Socialists in the US anymore) like tax those that do (Do what? Play bridge?) and give to those who do not (do not what? Do not eat vegetables?).” His screed was cliched, thoughtless, meaningless, an ultimately pointless. If he has something intelligent to say he should try again.
His point is to compromise after listening to all sides of the issue, and then give up your US Costitution principles in order to appease the liberal side-as it has been for many years. I.E., Bush with all his negative bashing by liberals and the “drive by media” as well as sometimes poor judgement(better than what is happening now) and with a newly elected liberal Congress, had unemployment at 4.6 or 4.8% before his last two years of liberal controlled Congress. Now it is 8.3% and declining but not many new jobs for last month. HPackard is laying off thousands of employees very soon according to the news. Good intentions by the other side(liberals) but we need to swing back to getting this country running again.No more spending as has been occurring with dismal results.
I see your point, and agree with it. Very few people use true positive thinking. Most think positive refers to the good stuff only, but it involves looking at both sides of the issue and then doing what is best for themselves,the state or the country. Conservatives have strong principles that they believe in, whereas liberals will risk following principles to extending their thoughts and actions beyond the very foundation of this country(US Constitution) and stride for a utopian atmosphere where one government for the good of all, and basic changes to boredom of following what is important (necessary) to make this Republic work.
You see his point? He had a point?
Compromise on key values to the left over the last 40 years has brought us to the situation we find ourselves. Self identified Liberals, according to Gallup, are only about 20-21% of the population yet they control the Democratic party to its very core.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx
As a result we find ourselves with liberals controlling many of our institutions which might be called tyranny by a minority.
It is time that conservatives no longer cave in to every liberal challenge but hold to your principles.
I believe it…tho we have the same problem on our side with “religious conservatives.” Same type of tail wagging the dog.
I believe you are not discussing this article, but you are discussing your own agenda.
And that speaks to Esty’s general point (he may not have all the details right, but he has an interesting general idea).
We see the world differently. Both liberals and conservatives think they use reason. Both actually use a combination of reason and intuition. We see that on these discussion pages.
Esty thought he was being reasonable, trying to explain why conservatives and liberals see the world differently. Instead of discussing his points, you responded with typical conservative talking points about how horrible liberals are, and why compromise with those horrible liberals is a bad idea. But you are ignoring the ideas and theme Esty presented. You think that’s reasonable on your part. But I suspect that you responded out of an emotional place, rather than with your reason.
He was not explaining how conservatives and liberals see things differently. He was defining conservatives in his own terms and then bashing…. I see no reason to compromise with that.
You think he was bashing conservatives, so you respond by bashing liberals.
I believe you are coming, this time, more from a point of emotion than of reason. If you think he was unreasonable, then respond with reason.
Esty said that both conservatives and liberals value fairness, caring, and liberty. Conservatives, however, put a higher value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity than do liberals, and that often helps them win.
He may have been a bit one-sided. But I don’t think that it is unreasonable to say that conservatives often put a higher value on authority (like military authority) and loyalty (like a particular reverence to the flag) than many liberals do. And as for sanctity, conservatives are more likely to be church-goers than are liberals.
Personally, I have a very high regard for our men and women in uniform, and am very appreciative of their service to our country — yet we might say that, typically, conservatives put more stress on such values than liberals do. If I say that, am I insulting conservatives? I don’t think so.
I do think that sometimes conservatives win because they more intelligently use emotional arguments than the liberals do.
The Swift Boat ads are a case in point. Logical replies to the anti-Kerry Swift Boat ads didn’t work because the ads effectively tapped into a gut feeling.
The ads that were run on Maine TV stations against the freedom to marry in 2009 also tapped into people’s fears about our children being exposed in school to ideas that we, ourselves, are uncomfortable discussing. In that sense the ads were very clever and effective, even if they were (in my humble opinion) unreasonable and counter-factual. Making a reasonable argument generally can’t overcome an emotional response.
Is it an insult to conservatives to say that they are often more effective than liberals in using emotional arguments?
When conservatives appeal to flag, family, and religious faith, they often win the argument. We liberals also need to learn how to appeal to flag, family, and faith.
I was not bashing liberals. I was making a statement that we conservatives (self-defined) shouldn’t take it anymore. You are doing the same thing he did…
Many liberals and progressives think we shouldn’t take it anymore from conservatives, just as you say conservatives shouldn’t take it anymore from liberals. How does that talk get us anywhere?
I’m trying to reason with you. I’m just saying that we see the world differently, and although both sides use reason, conservatives are often more effective than liberals when it comes to adding a second appeal, an emotional appeal.
You say I’m doing the same thing Esty did. Honestly, I don’t see it. What do you think I’m doing?
Though the author purports to be making an argument for political compromise, the examples he gives of Democrats and Republicans are revealing.
“Liberals (most Democrats) relate more to reasoning, whereas conservatives (most Republicans) relate more to intuition.”
Liberals, driven by reason (“an intellectual pursuit of truth”) go through life thinking great thoughts and arriving at conclusions through careful deliberation and weighing of factual evidence.
Conservatives, driven more by intuition (“an emotional gut feeling that also involves some reasoning formed by experience.”) are more akin to clever monkeys, able to perform simple repetitive tasks, but constrained in their ability to “think.”
And this: “…but conservatives value…authority…more than liberals.” Puzzling, since liberal political philosophy invariably comes down on the side of increased governmental intervention in all the minutiae of life, while conservatives prefer limited government and individual freedom.
“For liberals, it often means helping the less fortunate, while to conservatives, it means earning what you get.”
Note that he asserts that “helping the less fortunate” is an exclusively liberal attribute while “earning what you get” is presented as the conservative alternative to compassion rather than a rejection of the soft bigotry of low expectations. One is left with the visual image of Daddy Warbucks, laboring under the weight of his moneybags, trampling over the prostrate bodies of starving widows and orphans to get to the bank before it closes.
“But Republicans can often prevail without any solid facts.”
Good grief.
You hit the nail on the head. Many liberals like David Estey have an elitist attitude that looks down on others as misinformed, less intelligent, more emotional, heartless, etc. They don’t seem to be aware of their own shadow, not to mention their own image. I sigh alongside you. GOOD GRIEF.
You refer to “liberals like Esty.” Is Esty a liberal? Maybe. But I don’t know him, and can’t tell for certain from this article. He did NOT say that conservatives are “misinformed, less intelligent, more emotional, heartless, etc.” You are putting words into his mouth.
Here are some of his condescending words.
“President Obama is not likely to win over intuitive conservatives with
professorial logic, but Republicans can often prevail without any solid
facts.”
Sounds like a tried and true Liberal to me…. He even sets the parameters of what it means to be conservative himself and THEN goes about bashing…
Esty is talking about how conservatives and liberals see the world
differently. Could he have been more balanced in his assessment? Yes, I’ll agree with you there, Cheesecake.
Yet he makes some valid points (yes, I agree that he could have been less condescending). He says that both liberals and conservatives value caring, liberty, and fairness. But conservatives also put high values on
authority (like military authority), loyalty (like flag and country) and
sanctity (like religious faith). By stressing authority, loyalty, and
sanctity, conservatives often are more effective in winning the
argument. Both liberals and conservatives use reason, but conservatives are often more effective than liberals in using the even more powerful emotional argument.
It’s not an insult to conservatives to say that they are often more effective than liberals when it comes to using emotion, and powerful symbols like family, flag, and faith (or authority, loyalty, and sanctity).
Always nice talking with you, Cheesecake.
Poster, loggin, to whom I replied, made a good case for Estey being a liberal I don’t doubt Estey is.
As to his opinion piece, Estey does imply that conservatives are misinformed, less intelligent, more emotional, heartless, etc., even though he may not have used any of these words to characterize conservatives. Poster loggin gives examples of these with the exception of “heartless”. But wouldn’t you say however that the following quote from Estey is a good example of his believe in the heartlessness of conservatives?
To wit: “We all believe in fairness, but for liberals, it often means helping the less fortunate ( a good quality), while to conservatives, it means earning what you get. (a less admirable quality)” [Note: the parenthetical remarks here are my own.]
Of course part of this statement conveniently omits to qualify that conservatives believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. Adding that statement would make conservatives look too generous and lenient towards the less fortunate.
Thanks, whawell, for your comments. I agree that Esty could have made a greater attempt to balance his remarks. I was intrigued with the article, however, because I’ve long been interested in the fact that two good, intelligent, educated human beings can have completely divergent opinions on politics and religion.
Do you think that “earning what you get” is a less admirable quality than “helping the less fortunate”? I might expect a liberal to say that, but you say it and you don’t present yourself as a liberal. If you really believe that, maybe you aren’t as conservative as you claim to be.
To answer your question: no, I don’t think “earning what you get” is less admirable than “helping the less fortunate”. “Earning or self-reliance” is the least we can expect from most people. Generally it should come before “helping others”. While a good quality, “helping others” can sometimes mean “enabling others”, a vise in my book.
The quote I cited was not mine but David Estey’s, and the remarks in parenthesis by me were intended to convey what David Estey really meant. If you examine his opinion piece you’ll see other parallels. I’m sorry for the confusion.
PS; This comment was edited for further clarification.
So, what you are saying that you were putting words in his mouth. He didn’t say it, but you think that’s what maybe he meant, sort of.
Just look at the parallel statements and you’ll see what I mean. “Putting words in ones mouth” implies deliberately or carelessly misinterpreting another person’s statement. That’s why I explained “If you examine his opinion piece you’ll see other parallels. I’m sorry for the confusion.”
Whether you agree with me or not about the parallel statements is up to you. What is important is that David Estey was treated fairly.
But you didn’t say that. You did. You were putting words in his mouth.
Could he have been more balanced? Sure. Could you be more balanced? Pretty much always. We could all try to be a bit more fair to the other guy.
Still, he didn’t say those things.
Okay, Penzance, you believe what you want. I stated my reasons for inserting those parenthetical remarks when I responded to your reply. You don’t have to agree with me. But to accuse me of deliberately or carelessly misinterpreting another person’s statement is unwarranted. If I thought otherwise I’d like to think I would be “man enough” to owe up to it.
Esty’s general point is demonstrated, I think, by the way people are responding to this article. Both sides of the political aisle believe that they use reason, while both sides use a combination of reason and personal intuition. When I was younger I was often baffled by the fact that intelligent people could find completely different ideas to be reasonable. I love and respect my sister, and I know she is intelligent, and yet we have very different beliefs and opinions. That doesn’t make her “less” than me. It just means that we see the world differently. We both use our reason, and in both cases our reason is also influenced by our intuition.
That’s why I’d rather have elections than kings or dictators. At least in our system we get to discuss ideas and have the right to try to persuade one another.
“At least in our system we get to discuss ideas and have the right to try to persuade one another.”
We’re in agreement on this point.
My disagreement with the author lies with his carefully crafted and loaded descriptions of
conservatism, while claiming to advocate compromise among equals with differing world views.
Attributing “professorial logic” to President Obama and his assertion of Republicans’ prevailing “without any solid facts” is a good example.
His opinion piece is a thinly veiled encomium to liberal superiority. He declares them in effect the alpha dogs, yet allowing that there is some utility to conservatism as its patriotism and religion, while mocked by liberals, can serve as stabilizing influences on the pack.
Here I thought Esty was insulting Obama by calling him “professorial.”
Generally voters don’t vote for the guy who comes across as professorial. When other things are pretty equal, they prefer the candidate they like and trust (Dwight D. Eisenhower) to the “egghead” (Adlai Stevenson). By the way, I was an Eisenhower fan myself, although too young to vote at that time.
I agree with you, however, that Esty could have shown better balance, and that some of the things he said come across as condescending toward conservatives.
I don’s see the author saying anything about compromise. He is talking about how conservatives and liberals see the world differently. He says that both liberals and conservatives value caring, liberty, and fairness. But conservatives also put high values on authority (like military authority), loyalty (like flag and country) and sanctity (like religious faith). By stressing authority, loyalty, and sanctity, conservatives often are more effective in winning the argument. Both liberals and conservatives use reason, but conservatives are often more effective than liberals in using the even more powerful emotional argument.
It’s not an insult to conservatives to say that they are often more effective than liberals when it comes to using emotion, and powerful symbols like family, flag, and faith (or authority, loyalty, and sanctity).
“I don’s see the author saying anything about compromise.”
His last paragraph addresses it: “We also have to accept that compromise is the way things get done in a democratic society.”
“but conservatives are often more effective than liberals in using the even more powerful emotional argument.”
It’s been my observation that it’s liberals who rely on emotional argument rather than conservatives.
How often have we seen conservatives described as “heartless?” How often have we seen liberals use “it’s for the children” as the emotional wedge for advancing any number of their political goals? And one would be hard-pressed to come up with a more emotion-driven belief system than liberals’ secular religion known as “environmentalism” with its anthropogenic global warming hysteria.
Thanks. I missed the line about compromise at the end of the article. I looked for it several times and never saw it.
Traditionally, compromise has usually been the way we, in the U.S., have managed to get things done. Traditionally, but not always. Sometimes we’ve been at loggerheads and not getting much of anything done (as currently), and in 1861 we even went to war with one another. Of course compromise is imperfect. The thing about compromise is that neither side gets everything they want, so both sides have reasons to be unhappy.
I don’t think that it is insulting to conservatives to say they have been skillful in using emotional arguments, coming up with with terms like “pro-life” (Who can be against life?) the non-existant “death panels” in the Affordable Care Act (nobody wants something called a “death panel”), and calling the inheritance tax a “death tax” (Who wants to tax dead people? Not me). To say that conservatives have been skillful and successful in using emotion to sway the argument is not to insult them.
And to call Obama “professorial,” as the article did, is not exactly a compliment, as the “egghead” generally loses the election.
Of course, as you might guess, I do not regard caring for our one and only inhabitable planet to be an “emotion-driven belief system” or a “secular religion.” I just think it’s common sense that we don’t want to destroy our home. It’s a practical and logical thing. The shouters and mockers, like Mr. Limbaugh, who are denying the results of dispassionate scientists, sound like the emotional folks to me. But that’s just my opinion.
How is “pro-life” any more emotional than “pro-choice,” which implies a denial of freedom? Pretty emotional stuff, if you ask me.
“the non-existant “death panels” in the Affordable Care Act”
Non-existent? That remains to be seen.
As the scandal known as “Climategate” at East Anglia revealed, proponents of AGW have politicized what should have been a purely scientific issue. There is plenty of dissension by scientists about the global warming issue, the most recent example being a letter to Charles Bolden, Jr., current NASA administrator, signed by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts regarding GISS’s James Hansen for his failure to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. The letter:
Dear Charlie:
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific dats prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropiate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
The non-existent “death panels” are still non-existent because they were never in the bill that Congress passed. They were never in the proposals, either. They were invented by the right-wingers to smear the Affordable Care Act.
There was a proposal that counseling about end-of-life options should be offered to those who wanted it, but because counseling was effectively and emotionally called “death panels,” the counseling option was taken out of the final bill. That’s all the big brou-ha-ha was about, but it was an effective emotional (although completely false) argument.
Yes, the right-wingers have made a big emotion-driven uproar about the so-called “Climategate” emails. Climate skeptics argued that the emails showed that global warming was a conspiracy in which scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The emails were taken out of context, and were made to seem as if data was being falsified. This was not, however, the case. Fox news stoked the controversy with great emotion.
Eight committees investigated the reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists is that global warming is occurring, and is likely linked to human activity.
But hey, we’ll find another planet if we wreck this one, won’t we?
“Lame-duck Barney Frank joins effort to repeal Obamacare ‘death panels’
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney frank announced on Tuesday his support for the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a significant portion of President Obama’s health care overhaul.
Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB….
IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the President, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.
In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the ‘real death panel’ in the health care law, as compared to ‘end-of-life counseling’ Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed ‘death panels.’
This one is the real baby right here – and most people missed this,’ Roe told The DC then. ‘What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about were these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling – and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed – and it’s the real death panel.’
The board would cap the total amount of money Medicare recipients could receive for care. Roe, a practicing physician before he entered politics, said health care decisions will ultimately be based solely on cost, instead of on the best possible health care outcomes for Medicare patients.
‘Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,’ Roe said in March. ‘Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on qualilty or need, but based on strictly cost.’
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/29/lame-duck-barney-frank-joins-effort-to-repeal-obamacare-death-panels/
“The emails were taken out of context, and were made to seem as if data was being falsified.”
Yeah, that’s their story and they’re stickin’ to it.
“But hey, we’ll find another planet if we wreck this one, won’t we?”
Why so emotional?
Not emotional at all. I just happen to like life on Earth. You don’t, maybe?
So you’re saying that calling voluntary counseling a “death panel” isn’t getting emotional?
It was Sarah Palin (and we know she always tells the truth) who came up with the term “death panels,” but nothing in the then proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged whether they were worthy of health care. Her statement has been widely debunked. Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.
How does having your insurance paying for vountary counseling constitute a “death panel”? Why use such an emotional and inaccurate term, unless it is to mislead and scare people? The fact that the right wing Daily Caller repeats the term doesn’t make it legitimate. It just means that the Daily Caller likes this particular emotional scare tactic, something that right-wingers do very effectively — that is, scare people unnecessarily. And you’re buying into it.
For 2009, “death panel” was named as PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year”, one of FactCheck’s “whoppers”, and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.
The Economist said the phrase was used as an “outrageous allegation” to confront politicians at town hall meetings during the August 2009 congressional recess. The New York Times said the term became a standard slogan among many conservatives opposed to the Obama administration’s health care overhaul. Former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham said it was “a lie crafted to foment opposition to the president’s push for reform” and Fox News analyst Juan Williams said “of course there is no such thing as any death panel.”
But you guys just love to scare people. Why so emotional? I think right-wingers just enjoy lying.
The creation of IPAB called for in Obamacare was called a “death panel” because it was deemed to be one potentially. I happen to agree with that assessment. Once unbridled power is given to the government or a branch thereof to control people, we can assume it will. Call it a scare tactic it you will, but the label rightly serves as a warning of potential grave abuse by such a panel.
It’s apparent that you didn’t read what I posted. This has nothing to do with Sarah Palin’s statements. I think left-wingers just enjoy hiding from reality.
And as long as we’re denigrating sources – FactCheck, Politifact, a former Newsweek editor, Juan Williams, The Economist and the New York Times are the “authorities” you’re citing? It is to laugh. Hey, didn’t Ed Schultz weigh in on the matter?
So did Barney Frank vote against it or not? It should be easy enough to look up on Huffington Post or DU.
So here I read an article in which the author discusses some of the human traits which lead to partisanship, or tribalism as he refers to it, and the negative impact that such traits have on a society that tries to govern itself by democratic principles. As the writer states, a democracy needs compromise, a free exchange of ideas, and a willingness to listen to other ideas in order to survive and prosper. As I write this comment, there are currently 9 comments to the article above. 6 of those comments…two thirds of them…exhibit perfectly the very entrenched, “refusal to listen or think other ideas are valuable” attitude that the writer is discussing above. The top-voted comment, by “Maine_gun_guy,” is nothing but a “the author forgot to mention that if you don’t think like I do you’re not pro-America” statement, clearly demonstrating that “Maine_gun_guy” not only completely missed the point, but is a shining example of what is wrong with our current dialog.
What the heck people. Try working on your reading comprehension, will ya?