Disagree without Destroying Each Other

Friday I linked to an Anchoress post about the tone of the recent debate on immigration. Today at the Examiner I discuss the need for the GOP to learn how to disagree without destroying each other.

There were powerful arguments to be made on the facts, and some did just that. Unfortunately, though, some in the GOP decided the way to succeed was to revert to the tactics they have criticized those on the other side of the aisle for engaging in for so many years. I wonder if they realize how many supporters they risk alienating if they continue down the road of trading accusations like “traitor” and “bigot” in future debates.

I was drawn to the Republican Party as a teenager, and have happily remained a Republican, in large measure due to the tendency among its advocates to argue facts and appeal to logic, rather than solely emotion.

In the case of the recent immigration debate, the public desperately needed facts about the bill and its possible ramifications. In addition to facts, emotion does play an important role in political debate. Passion is what moves the public to call and write their congressmen and to venture out on a rainy day to vote. What too often passed as passion and factual debate on this issue, however, were attacks hurled from those on both sides of the issue.Read the entire piece at The Examiner.

Mark Tapscott cites polls saying Congressional approval ratings are down for both parties and wonders whether a new party is needed.

Working wonders
Double dipping for double dips
  • Ryan

    Oh? Give examples of the ‘reasonable’ things which have been derided, could you?

  • I honestly don’t get the point of any of Drummond’s illegal alien posts and columns. I think he adds fuel to the fire when he asks for solutions, then when he gets them tears them down. He tells (not asks) us to play armchair quarterback and then gives all the reasons why those plays won’t work, and then how we’re not qualified to give them in the first place.

    “My party right or wrong” is bad, bad juju. Are there extremes? Sure. I don’t believe in the “New World Order” and that the President is actively trying to destroy the USA for fun and profit.

    I think the vast majority of conservatives who are opposed to the “comprehensive immigration reform” do so because we know that we need to find a way to make our borders reasonably secure first — and THAT is the debate we should be having. Not about what to do with the illegals here (not yet, at least), and ~not~ columns with the sole intent of proving how reasonable the author is and how partisan others are.

    On a side note: Does anyone else feel like blogs are microcosms of news-station discussions where two pundits talk or argue for five minutes and then the news moves on to the next item?

  • And pretending helping Democrats gain more power is in any way sane or reasonable for the USA, is just delusional.

    Respectfully, did you miss 2004-2006?

    Are we always going to go for the “lesser of two evils”, DJ?

  • J.R.

    Ryan,

    Please just go to some of the posts written by DJ, then read through the comments and see how DJ responds to other’s suggestions and solutions. It all comes down to what DJ views as a plan or solution. If what you write doesn’t meet his criteria for a plan, you are shouted down.

  • J.R.

    Bottom Line: If you’re blaming someone else but don’t have a clear plan yourself, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

    Bullcrap. There is plenty of blame to go around for the illegal immigration problem we have and calling someone out for that is not part of the problem. It only became part of the problem to you because we are calling GWB to the mat on this one. His backing of this bill is terrible, and his constant drumbeat to get something done is pathetic. And the conservatives around here who are saying this, myself included, have offered solutions, you have just chosen to disregard or misrepresent them.

  • J.R.

    And I will say this again (and it can’t be said enough) in regards to Lorie’s post. It was those in favor of this awful bill that came out with all the inflammatory rhetoric towards those who disagreed and/or wanted more debate about this bill.

    It was those of us who contacted our Senators, in spite of being called bigots and etc., and other Congressmen voicing our displeasure with how this was being handled that our responsible for the tabling (and hopefully killing) of this bill.

  • Ryan

    I am opposed to the immigration bill. For the five thousandth time. You don’t get to dodge and weave by trying to make this about support or not for the bill, which it isn’t.

    Its about Rebublicans adopting the very tactics they derided from Democrats.

  • J.R.

    Ryan, I agree with you. And the Republicans who adopted those tactics are the ones who favored the passage of this bill, not the ones against it!

    Do we agree on that or not? I’m not trying to dodge and weave on anything.

  • Veeshir

    Sorry DJ, I didn’t do the Internet last night after 5.

    You keep not responding to what I write. I wasn’t talking about Bush, I was talking about you writing this
    When Conservatives not only use, but embrace the rhetoric we so rightly excoriated and mocked in D-Kos and DU, how does anyone bring them back to sanity and responsible discussion?
    when you, as I tried to show, are a prime example of non-sane and irresponsible discussion. Nowhere, on this thread, did I mention Bush or immigration, I was talking about how you act. And of course, you are still ignoring my point. Responding to points is one of the major aspects of sane and responsible discussion.
    Physician heal thyself. as I wrote in my first comment on this thread.

    If you are still banging the drum about how we are supposed to support our betters no matter what they do, you’re in the wrong place.

  • Kasper Hauser

    Somehow I am not persuaded by D.J.’s argument that George Bush has not been able to enforce our immigration laws or secure the border because ( he is only the President!

    Nor am I moved toward supporting this bill by Bush’s attitude to the GOP base of the old Ted Knight retort “You’ll get nothing and you’ll like it!”

    Nope. I support enforcment first. And for this, i have been called a bigot (Graham), a racist (Chavez), a murderer (Chertov)and a vigillante (Bush).

    I’ve been played by that old line about “choosing the lesser of two evils” for many years, but now, I’m having a hard time figuring out which side that is.

    My mother, 79 years old and and ethnic Republican, just dropped her membership in the GOP. She’s heartbroken and told me “Well, I hope my grandkids are going to like this “socialism” thing”

  • kim

    Doncher mean dhimmitude?
    ==================