"Treat people kindly but ideas harshly."
"In a world of heated ideological differences and partisan political conflict, it’s tempting to paint our opponents as stupid and evil, as calculating opportunists. Again, often they are, and from their point of view often so are we. We need to get past that. We need to keep learning."
"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first. Even if we end up rejecting them, we will, having been able to correctly state the opposite case, have a better idea why we reject them. Learning through personal interactions requires dialogue, and genuine dialogue between grownups who disagree cannot begin with name-calling and smirking cynicism. No. Genuine dialogue means treating our ideological opponents as people of goodwill with the hope that they will treat us the same way. Only then can we learn and grow."
"As a young libertarian scholar recently summed it up, 'Treat people kindly but ideas harshly.' Exactly!"I agree with this approach. I don't believe, however, that it requires compromise of your principles. I also believe that if it applies to your opponents, it should apply that much more to your friends. The current Republican primary is a case in point.
In a primary, each candidate for nomination works very hard to depict themselves as the the best choice to represent the views of the voters in their party in the general election. While each candidate is sure that they are the best choice, only one candidate will be nominated...no matter how many run for office. Knowing this going into the process, I think all of a party's candidates should fight hard for nomination but also plan for what happens if they don't win. Not being nominated, does not necessarily mean that a candidate has "lost." They can still win support for their ideas and make a positive impact on the direction of the party and the country. But, too often, this is not that happens.
"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first."I don't think any of the current crop of Republican candidates are perfect and without fault. I do, however, believe that any of them would be immeasurably better than Obama. And, like him or dislike him, Newt Gingrich had the right idea when he said that he would not attack his fellow Republicans because the real opponent was Barack Obama.
What I am seeing now, as the primary season grows shorter, is the knives coming out between Republicans while the Democrats sit back and laugh. The Republican Party encompasses a range of people from the establishment to the libertarian...personified in this election cycle in Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, with everyone else somewhere in between. And somewhere in between is where I stand, though I'm much closer to the libertarian end of the scale than the establishment end. The supporters of establishment end call Ron Paul fringe and crazy when it comes to foreign policy. The libertarians say that Mitt Romney is bought and paid for shill of the big banks. Libertarians say they can't support the Establishment candidates...Establishment begs the libertarians not to go third party. None of it is helpful...it only serves to tear down...not build up.
Neither side should compromise their convictions, but, they should plan for what happens next. If Ron Paul wins, how do the other candidates have an influence to temper what they see as isolationist foreign policy? How do they keep their supporters from sitting out the election and handing Obama a second term?
If Mitt Romney wins, how do the libertarians make sure that their ideas of limited government and non-interventionism continue to be heard. How do they keep their supporters from going to a third party and, once again, handing Obama the win?
First, all of the name calling and muck-raking has to stop among Republican supporters. Then, they need to deal honestly and openly with their ideas and issues. Many in the party believe that Paul has great ideas when it comes to the fiscal operations of government. It is widely agreed that Romney brings real-world business experience and understanding to the table. Gingrich has a good grasp of government's historical role. Perry and Huntsman have good executive experience as governors of States that are doing comparability well. Santorum and Bachman have track records of tirelessly working for conservative principles in Congress. While no candidate is perfect for every voter in the party, they all have their strong points.
We must then find our common ground and stand united. There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...Each candidate should strongly promote their views and say why they may disagree with the views of their fellow candidates. But, lets all look to the good of the country and plan for what happens next...once one candidate is chosen. We must then find our common ground and stand united. There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...if we have not made enemies out of each other in the process.
For the good of our republic...for the future of our children...let's play nice with each other and defeat the failed ideas and policies of the Left.
