A good debater can argue many positions, any of which may be in disagreement with a personal view. The ability to argue an opposing point of view requires the ability to at least imagine how someone could arrive at that position. If it can be imagined then it can be rationally justified to at least some degree.
I watch ABC’s This Week on Sundays and CNN American Morning (“the most politics in the morning”) during the week. The various campaigns and/or parties have a stable of spokespersons that act as, more or less, permanent media surrogates. The networks also have their own commentators that generally represent a right or left point of view. The most interesting to me are those that appear regularly on This Week, especially on the round-table. With a couple of exceptions, the panelists are articulate and express their views in an intelligent and rational manner. I have been challenged to rethink my opinions on more than one occasion when a panelist has made a particularly good opposing argument. Among the best are:
- George Will has been on the scene as a traditional conservative for a long time. It seems that he should be much older than he actually is considering that he was a Goldwater supporter. I do not always agree with George. But he is very well educated on the issues. His fancy-pants vocabulary sometimes comes across as condescending (especially in print). But he makes rational and concise arguments based on facts. Even when I disagree with him, it is rarely on a point of logic.
- Cokie Roberts is also a long-time veteran and tends toward the conservative. Her observations and instincts are generally spot on.
- Donna Brazile was/is an operative in the Democratic party. She tends to lean toward the left but her liberalism seems tempered by a pragmatic grasp of political realities. She is especially interesting to me because, as a black woman from the south, she provides an informed perspective of both gender and race.
At the other end of the spectrum are those guest panelists who insist on finding dark storm clouds for any hint of a silver lining or denying that there ever is a silver lining. The poster-child for this is Katrina Vanden Heuvel. I can only imagine that she gets invited to participate because she is so extreme as to make everybody else look that much more rational. She is the prototype east-coast liberal, the type that has made it distasteful for rational idealists to identify themselves as liberals. I have a lot more to say about liberal vs conservative. But the point of this article concerns the credibility of the spokespersons. The problem with Katrina and her ilk is that sometimes they make excellent arguments but their point is lost because they have damaged their credibility by repeatedly denying that those who disagree with them have any hope of ever being right about anything.
What makes a good, and persuasive, commentator is the ability to understand that most positions exist in a shade of gray. Nobody is absolutely right and nearly all of those whose skills put them in a position of power or influence are right at least some of the time. Someone who can effectively argue for a position also has more influence when arguing against it. In the minds of most listeners (well, me anyway), such a person has more moral authority to comment on an issue when he or she at least appears to grant the possibility that the opposing opinion has some merit even if it is ultimately wrong.
In fact, I believe this to be a defining characteristic of the politically moderate. The political center is roughly the average of all opinions taken together. A moderate tends to agree with the average position on a given issue. When you are in the center, every path leads toward the edge (or fringe). Taking the time to really listen and understand (to the extent possible) an opposing point of view can either attenuate your opposition or confirm it. But your opinion isn’t likely to remain static. The more opposing positions that are considered (think circle, not line) the more likely there is to be a balance between them.
Does this mean that I think everybody should be politically moderate? Well, moderation can be a virtue. But no. We need the extremes to pull us toward action. Being in the middle also often means that we have no motivation for change. It’s like electricity or water. There is no flow if everything is in perfect balance. Differences create the potential for energy. On any given issue, I do strive to reach balance. But it may not be in the center in the sense that it is the average American position. The intent is that my positions reflect a thoughtful consideration of, and respect for, opposing points of view which I then correlate with my other positions and consolidate into a point of view that is uniquely mine.
Nor do I expect most professional commentators to be moderate. If they were, it would not be very interesting to watch. What I do expect is that such commentators respect that other positions may also have merit.
