Now that the conservative hubris party has died down a little. . .

[Cary]

I still see a small, smoldering campaign still being waged against liberal thought. I would post a link to an example of a silly effort in this regard but I don't want to give this silly little fellow any publicity.

I am pondering the best way to oppose this campaign. My confidence in the marketplace of ideas has been shaken a bit by the past 5 years, for good reasons raised right here at DU. I take great exception to this artificial grouping of people into "liberals" and "conservatives". I take greater exception to this demonization a la an Ann Coulter.

The response I get from semi reasonable purveyors of this demonization is that they are only giving "us" back what "we" do to them. I am biased but I don't see "us" ever doing this thing to them. In fact I welcome legitimate debate and I think that free and open, non-judgmental debate is a core value of "liberalism." Am I missing something? Do "we" demonize them (except in response to what "they" are doing to "us"?)

Insofar as "we" are doing it to "them," are "we" making a mistake? Are "we" making a mistake in not retaliating more? Or should "we" work to move the debate to a higher plane? Sure, the more reasonable of "them" saw reason in the Schiavo debate. But "they" bounce right back into "their" apologist ways, effectively shunning debate.

If I had my way I'd work to do away with the "us" versus "them" altogether. It is a fiction that isn't serving "us" or "them" very well.

[bunkerbuster1]

1. I'm going to wait for orders from my General,

Michael Moore, and the Hollywood Elite, who control my thoughts and behavior.

I hate America, don't you?

...sorry, don't really have the energy to keep this up. Look, we are our best being ourselves. Some of us are smartasses, some are serious, some love to put the smack in smackdown, some give the other guy enough rope to hang himself.

There's more than one way to skin this cat. You gotta find your own way. I suspect from reading your post that you are fairly inclusionary, that you want to concede some points the other guy might have while continuing to press forward with your own agenda. That works with reasonable people. It doesn't work with idealogues.

My .02 Euros.

[On the Road]

2. There is a LOT of Democratic Demonization of Republicans

It's more visible and more disturbing when it's directed against your own party. But the other side is there, too. Ted Rall's challenge was an enlightening experiment.

Personally, I think the Republicans today do it more frequently, more visibly, and more offensively. And it's done at higher levels of the party rather than just by people like you and me. But that's a matter of perception.

I think broadside political attacks can be good under certain circumstances. I like the way Howard Dean attacks because it's usually tied into specific political issues in which he can show the superiority of the Democratic position.

When ad hominem attacks are just thrown around, it may feel good, but I don't think it's particularly helpful if it's done publicly.

[Jade Fox]

3. We liberal/leftists have made fun of conservatives for decades....

in this country, and for good reason! Their beliefs and actions often
warrent it, and we make fun of ourselves as well. But its clear there
are a lot of hurt feeling out there, and I have wondered what our
responsibility is. Often it seems as though conservatives just
have no sense of humor, and demand respect regardless of how silly,
or corrupt and self-serving their actions are.

People like Limbaugh and Coulter clearly think they are doing payback
for decades of stuff like Nixon jokes, but they confuse humor with meaness.
They also make no apologies for their dishonesty, appearing to believe
that too is justifiable payback.

[forgethell]

4. Cheer up.

In any market you may buy a lemon or two before you get the real deal. I could tell you horror stories about my first car and my first house.

Maybe that's what's happening now.

:)

[BeFree]

5. "Us vs. Them"

We were born into a system of apartheid. Until they totally join with us in a dynamic democracy, it will always be: Us vs. Them.

As it is, the republicans believe in appointing leaders, whilst we believe all people should be allowed to play a part in the system of leadership.

That is the fundamental difference that shall forever keep us apart.

The only other option is for Us to submit to their system by being subservient to the leaders.

[Cary]

6. I don't believe that.

There are nutcases to be sure, and most are beyond redemption to be sure as well. But there are also reasonable people, and there is a whole spectrum of thought and belief. The Schiavo case highlighted that fact.