Kashei over at Spot On recounts a recent debate she attended and explains why she thinks "liberals" have nothing to offer serious thinkers. (The quotes are mine; I can't refer to modern Democrats without them, sorry.)
If the purpose of a debate is to leave with your thinking somewhat changed, then the conclusion I came to last night is that I don't need any liberals in a debate. They just have nothing to add these days. I haven't come away from any conversations with liberals, in particular about Iraq, feeling like I've had my position challenged or that I had been given food for thought. 'Bush is an idiot', 'Bush is evil', 'it's all about oil' or 'he's just doing this to please his daddy' aren't arguments.I agree with her in general, which is why I think it will be good for the country when the Democratic Party implodes after being annihilated by President Bush this November. We need two (or more, but let's not get overly optimistic) serious parties to have meaningful political debate; we need meaningful political debate in order to come up with the best possible policies. As I mentioned earlier today, President Bush can get away with anything because all his opponents want to surrender the country to the UN and/or Islamofascist suicide bombers. This isn't good, and as the evidence shows President Bush is getting away with far too much.
Michael,
If the two parties were constituted as you wished, what would each party stand for? What would be their primary philosophical differences?
My suspicion is that what you would like to see is for one party to be conservative and the other to be extremely conservative. Such as one party led by a Tom DeLay and the other party led by a Bob Dole.
I'd like two parties that each had something to offer everyone. You're right in thinking that they'd be very similar (as if R's and D's aren't already, but in bad ways). As it is, as Kashei wrote, the Dems are fringing themselves out of existence, which isn't a good thing.
Political parties have come and gone during the course of American history. There was a time when the Whigs were a major party, and now they're gone. Similarly, the modern Republican party didn't even exist until 1854.
So although I don't think it's probable, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Democratic party may fade away, and replaced with some third party, especially if they espouse views farther and farther away from the American mainstream.
PH: I think everything in this world is more entrenched now that it was a hundred years ago, including political parties. I doubt the Dems will disappear, but I do think they'll change considerably in the near future and diverge from the fringe opinions that currently dominate the party.
My own perspective is that fundamentalist Christians have little to offer. However, because now and then some morsel of wisdom or insight comes from one of them, I continue to engage them. And, since my friendships often cross ideological views, sometimes I engage fundamentalists because I value the friendship more than I disrespect their views.
Joel: I don't know why you visit my site then, since I'm pretty much a fundamentalist, by most people's definition anyway. Well, some, maybe not most. I don't know.
Eh, nevermind, just one of those nights.
Michael,
I chose to see if I could make you think by offering a somewhat baiting comment. By your headline of "liberals have nothing to offer" you were in effect saying that I don't have anything to offer. Interesting that you would ask me why I visit your site when I actually acknowledged, in effect, that I have a higher opinion of what you have to offer than you do of what I have to offer. You said I had nothing to offer. I said you had little. Besides, you personalized it by saying "liberals" as opposed to "the liberal viewpoint," even if you were quoting someone else.
I realize that I was generalizing when I said that liberals have nothing to offer in terms of debate. I'm sure that some do, I have plenty of brilliant liberal friends (although, they are as guilty as the rest of reducing Bush to stereotypes and being unable to support anything that he is for). It's just that I like to have my arguments challenged, it's the best way to really trust what you believe and I don't get that from liberals today. Their arguments against going into Iraq seemed so unserious to me. Their domestic policy-unrealistic.
I agree that many liberal thinkers resort to stereotypes of Bush like "he's evil" or "it's all about oil", and these aren't very productive arguements. On the other hand, many liberals share the same criticisms of President Bush that you yourself (Michael) have. If liberals are guilty of stereotyping conservatives, then conservatives are equally guilty of "selective" listening.