Let’s agree to disagree

But set some ground rules, with civility as a baseline. The “can’t we all just get along?” lament has devolved into a joke often referred to either by political pundits or comedians. The lament is currently over how mean-spirited public discourse has become, and only ramping up to be more so with presidential campaigns in full swing. But Jonah Goldberg asks if political partisanship is such a bad thing, after all, and his column gives pause for thought.

It has become a central ritual of our times for Beltway priests like the Washington Post’s David Broder to lament the coarseness, acidity and all-around ickiness of our polarized political culture. They’re not absolutely wrong. All I need to do to appreciate the toxicity of the political culture is check my e-mail each morning.

Indeed, since at least the election of Ronald Reagan, the left and the right have grown ever more snappish with each other. Each feels entitled to take the wheel without suffering any backseat driving. Each side feels the other is illegitimate in some way, and somehow that justifies their nastiness. That can be a shame, but really, it’s not the end of the world.

Both points are true. 

We’ve seen worse. For example, in his 2004 book, The Two Americas, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg proclaimed: “Our nation’s political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before.”

This might strike some — say, anyone who’s seen the Gone with the Wind scene in which all those Civil War dead and wounded are laid out like cordwood — as a bit of an exaggeration. Call me crazy, but such bloodshed seems like a deeper sign of division than a bunch of sweaty partisan bloggers pounding their keyboards, or liberals and conservatives watching different cable news networks.

Also, denouncing partisanship doesn’t make anyone pure of heart. Uniters can be motivated by selfishness just as dividers can be on the side of the angels. Have you noticed how the people most concerned about political polarization tend to be politicians in power?

Is unity the ultimate goal? It’s not unity of thought, but of intention to engage the debate that’s most desirable…or maybe do-able.

Unity is not only overrated, it’s often undemocratic. Decrying the “polarization” may be something decent people are supposed to do, like recycling or paying more for organic breakfast cereal that tastes like kitty litter. But the alternative is no great shakes.

Hillary Clinton leads an all-star cast of politicians who wax poetic on their desire to get beyond politics, move past partisan labels or put ideology aside. When you hear that rhetoric, consider this as a translation: “Those who disagree with me should shut up and get on board the progress train.”

(See post below Shutting down opposition on Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and civil argument.)

I have never witnessed anyone who said that we need to get beyond ideology actually abandon his own position for the sake of unity.

For example, Al Gore constantly says the time for debating global warming is over and the time for unified action is now. But he says that because he wants the other side to stop disagreeing with him. Gore critics and fans alike can agree that he would be an idiot and an intellectual coward if, valuing unity over substance, he switched sides. Similarly, activists on both sides of the Iraq war may think that unity’s nifty, but few seem willing to embrace the opposition’s view to achieve it.

The 2008 election is going to be a horror show of name-calling, cheap shots and spittle-flecked outrage. Some of the vitriol will be unfair and beyond the pale, and that’s to be condemned. But democracy is about disagreement, and you can’t have the former without the latter. So maybe we should stop griping and try to enjoy the ride.

We need an arena of ideas, and people of conviction and passion on all sides willing to engage them with logic and reason. Is it rare? Yes. That’s why those who engage ideas with logic and reason will stand out above the crowd.