Bill,
Thinking over the 2 momentous debates of the last week, I'm struck by the fine line the combatants (also known as politicians) walk when they enter the arena of public consciousness. Romney's masterful take down of the President was widely seen as proof of his leadership skills; Obama's passivity was universally interpreted as weakness. Depending on which side of the aisle you stand on, Biden's combative stance was accepted as appropriately forceful or derided as rude. I for one am amazed at how they do it. I certainly couldn't. I'd end up throwing a chair at the other guy and being marched off the stage
When I describe my experience on this blog to my friends and family I mostly focus on what's it's like to be voluntarily locked into an ongoing conversation with someone who looks at much of the world quite differently than I do. Mostly (and now I'm going to go all mushy on you so be forewarned), it's an engaging and edifying experience. For me at least, it works because I am not trying to "win" anything. In fact, if you turned into a raving liberal next week I would greet the news with unqualified disappointment. It certainly would mean the the end of the BPS, as there couldn't be anything more dull than 2 middle aged left wing bloggers agreeing with each other. The country confronts problems that threaten its essential vitality and the welfare of its citizens, and the the only plausible solutions to those problems involve choices that challenge core beliefs along the entire ideological spectrum. That's where I plant my flag, in the dull left-of-center. Scoring debating points (though I suppose I'll take them when I can) is secondary.
The BPS works, IMO, because we have more interest in success than in failure. Would someone please explain that notion to the politicians?
Eli
No comments:
Post a Comment