How to Make Nothing Seem Real Big-Like

Fox News is just too darned conservative for a fine up-standing non-faggot liberal like John Edwards:

The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev)...

Controversy has been brewing for weeks about the debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Wednesday he would not participate, citing Fox's conservative ties as a factor. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, sent an e-mail to the liberal website DailyKos, which was posted on the site.

As always, several points.
1) Calling a presidential debate controversial is redundant--or should be. Once upon a time, presidential candidates disagreed on a variety of issues, leading to genuine controversy. Now, the difference between the candidates is so slight that controversial is probably a misnomer, but what is really fascinating is that most Americans actually believe that this debate would have been controversial. Which, of course, leads me into my next point.

2) The political landscape is divided into "liberals" and "conservative". According to anyone who is "extreme" enough to shun either label, the camps are, for all intensive purposes, identical. But both liberals and conservatives suspect this. And this is, understandably, quite a bit frightening.

If a lib and a con sat down and talked about what they believe in, they would discover either that 1) individually, their views rarely, if ever, aligned with those of their respective party or 2) collectively, they may as well belong to the same party. I've given the litany of issues before, so I'll not do it again, unless requested to do so.

But the really interesting thing is this: two people who disagree on any number of issues but are reasonably well informed and intellectually honest may get along well enough, and have any number of discussions about their different viewpoints. But remove honesty and information, and one is left with only shouting words. You are now entering the political wasteland.

To convince someone of a truth, several things are necessary. First, you must really and truly believe in this truth. Second, you must continue to collect new information about the topic at hand, not in seeking to find facts which confirm one's view of truth, but instead with the greater truth in mind. In short, intellectual honesty, which requires an almost agnostic mind, is needed. Third, you must understand the views of the person with whom you are discussing. Fourth, you must be patient and charitable. This last requirement is very important, but it is utterly irrelevant without the first three.

I think that's a good list to start with. The obvious application is that politicians fail in regards to one, two, and three almost to a one, and most fail at the fourth as well. I think one reason for Obama's success is that he meets the partial requirements for one, and exemplifies the fourth.

My train of thought took off without me, but I'll close with two more things.
1) The angry words and harsh rhetoric may be an exposition, not of the large chasm which separates the two ideologies du jour, but of the pitiful gap which hardly does the same. Call it a paradox, to be expounded upon at a later date.
2) Intellectual honesty is, as always, sorely lacking. I don't see how mankind will ever see its lot improved without a return to care of truth. Or Truth.