“Right” and “Left” imply a symmetry of some sort. The ideological divide is nothing of the sort. It is in fact a replay of the ancient Greek debate between the Sophists and the Philosophers. In its ancient Greek form, the debate is between “sophists” who claimed superior wisdom, and “philosophers” who eschewed any claim of superior wisdom but instead claimed only to love wisdom. Claiming to be wise produces very short, very unsatisfactory “debates” similar to the familiar “dialogue about race.” The latter is nothing more than a demand that the conservative white shut up and be lectured by the “liberal” white. Just so, a “debate” with the sophist who claims superior wisdom goes, “I and wise and you do not even claim to be wise. Therefore I am right and you are wrong. Shut up."The philosopher, OTOH, claims to love wisdom - and demands facts and logic as the pathway to understanding. Just so the “conservative” appeals to facts and logic while the “liberal” pounds the table. Pounding the table can be remarkably effective when you have an advantage to exploit. The “liberal” has the advantage of the “objective” journalist, who uses the claim of objectivity in precisely the same sense as the sophist uses the claim of wisdom. The claim of objectivity only proves that the claimant is not objective about himself, and the claim of wisdom is likewise an embarrassment to the claimant who is seriously challenged on facts and logic.Bill Bennett should be well qualified to play the “Philosopher” role in moderating a debate, and bring out the best in conservative candidates.
Good point - it IS who they are... hadn't quite seen it in those terms. Thanks conservatism is compassion...