One nevertheless feels constrained to tiptoe a bit less he unnecessarily tramples too heavily on the sensibilities of a fellow FReeper.
I've written a series of impassioned posts decrying this mania with zapping which can lapse so easily into vigilantism. I believe FreeRepublic has the capacity to become, in fact it might already be, the most important board on the net. To realize this potential, we must have a climate which tolerates, within a consensus for conservatism, a healthy dissent and a healthy dose of self-examination.
I believe this applies, for example, to the war in Iraq which I think needs a serious reassessment in light of the threat from Iran. If you look into my posts you will see that I am attempting to advance a minority viewpoint, but within the bounds of comity.
I completely agree with the thrust of your post. We may from time to time disagree on specifics and no one has a monopoly on perfectly clear insight but we all would benefit from rational debate that allows all points of view to be examined and defended without impugning the motives or intelligence of the opposition. A thorough mix of openmindness is also a needed commodity here. I find the presumption that any particular leader is beyond reproach particularly disturbing. No local or national leader should ever accept office expecting even loyal supporters to unquestionably accept every action they take and no one in the electorate should ever accept not being able to voice dissent when especially if rationally expressed and defended.
I also agree with you regarding the importance of FR. It can be a good barometer of conservative thought but only if all views are allowed, even those that bring into doubt party affiliation. It should be a conservative answer we seek not a party answer. Both parties need barometers of their respective bases. If FR allows free expression of conservative though and debate, because the conservative view is more profound in the Republican party the GOP benefits. To the extent that we are rational and make solid arguments to support our conservative demands on our government we can even expect to have a positive impact on the Democrats who suffer woefully from a total lack of conservative thought. That is the way we will build conservative strength in Blue states where the only GOPs elected are GOP in name only. The problem is not defeating liberal Republicans and replacing them with Conservative ones. The answer of how to do that and the consequence of the blunt force method is a true conundrum but it must be done nevertheless. The problem is changing the minds of the voters that put those people in place to begin with. The answer to that is honest open rational debate both on this board and maybe more importantly with our liberal neighbors across the backyard fence. At least IMO. FR can give us a good place to practice our debate if we conduct ourselves properly.
We may from time to time strongly disagree but we need to actually hear each other and not be drowned out by name calling as a defense or offense in the honest debate of ideas. There is woefully too much piling on of this nature and it is getting worse to the detriment of all conservative points of view.
Having said all this I don't want to be a hypocrite. I have from time to time lapsed into shorthand descriptions of well understood stereotypes that unfortunately trap the debate into a personal exchange. A practice I am trying hard to avoid.
My wife tells me I talk too much..I think she may be right.