A Tuesday letter writer hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “Taking a stand is neither ruffled sensibilities nor casting stones — it’s democracy.” Taking a stand is also a necessary precursor to intelligent debate. But intelligent debate cannot exist when the proponents lack the will or intellectual honesty to focus on the issue rather than on their opponent.
It has become standard practice to discredit the message merely by discrediting the messenger: the president’s spokesperson condemns Fox News for its motives instead of its message; Glenn Beck condemns the president for accepting the Nobel Prize; Brian Murphy of WhoSigned.org obsesses over outing the R-71 petition signers; columnist Eugene Robinson can’t resist accusing conservatives of hating America. One newspaper on one day.
Jay Leno likes to ask “How lazy have we Americans become?!” When it comes to debating the issues of our day, one must conclude that we have become very lazy. It is easy to discount an opposing viewpoint by looking for human failings in our adversary. It is simple to minimize the validity of an opponent’s viewpoint by questioning his motives or alliances. If the dumbest kid in the class asks a good question, does the teacher engage him, or respond with mocking criticism? The advocate is irrelevant to the discussion.
In all walks of life, real progress is the product of hard work, and the same can be said of social progress. We must be willing to do the hard work of intelligent debate by ascribing to our antagonist a measure of common respect and by possessing a willingness to yield to a point well made. Let’s hope we can turn the tide before more good people decide that it’s better to remain silent than to subject themselves to character assassination.
If you find yourself searching for clues to my party affiliation in the content of this letter, stop it. You’re proving my point.
Scott Weaver
Mukilteo
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
