I do think this goes both ways. Even Prager said that liberals are driven more by emotion than reason. There doesn't seem to be a respect for the rationale behind the other side's thinking there either. I'm not a liberal – though I am more liberal than Prager. I agree with your last paragraph. I wish all sides would deal with their opponents more charitably. I wish liberals would acknowledge conservatives' concern for people. Similarly, I wish conservatives would acknowledge liberals' reason. To borrow your wise statement, maybe, just maybe, all sides have good reasons for the positions they hold.

Re: Air America Update
by Amy at 01:51PM (PST) on Mar 23, 2005
Tyler, thanks for the comment–that's an excellent challenge, and I think there's something to what you say here. I would like, though, to clarify a couple of points:

First, I've never heard Prager say that liberal positions are driven by negative emotions of hate, anger, etc. (with the exception of narcissism in the case of things like atheists suing to not have to see anything related to God in the public square, lest they be offended). His point is merely that they allow their feelings about “what is good for people” to override the proof of actual results (e.g., in the case of bilingual education.) So even in this case, Prager is not discouraging dialogue by maligning their intentions.

Second, Prager does engage those who disagree with him through on-air conversations. Part of the point of my post is that because liberals think conservatives are not genuine, but have mean–even evil–motivations, they assume there are *not* any good reasons to discuss, so they dismiss meaningful dialogue. But Prager does not assume that liberals couldn't have good reasons for their positions. On the contrary, Prager demonstrates that he grants that the other side *might* have good reasons just by interacting with them on his show. This is in contrast to Air America, which does not grant the possibility, and therefore does not interact with reasonable conservatives on their shows (at least, from what I have heard–I would love to be wrong about this).

Obviously, Prager thinks that the people who disagree with him do not have the best reasons for their positions, or he would hold their positions! But he is still willing to examine and challenge himself by making sure he understands the opposing side and by engaging in meaningful dialogue. He can only do this because he grants that they *might* have good reasons. And that's all I'm asking for.

Re: Air America Update
by Tyler Watson at 05:33PM (PST) on Mar 23, 2005
I wouldn't say liberals as a whole think conservatives are not genuine but mean any more than conservatives think the same of liberals. Both sides question the motives of their opponents to the point of avoiding debate. I would venture to guess that it is a small, vocal group on both sides who villify and demean their opponents. It just happens that several of these voices are on talk radio.

I really don't know why I commented on this post since I think the talk radio medium has been detrimental to the American political process. (That's a sweeping generalization, so take it with a grain of salt. Not everything out there is bad.) I've said several times that I mourn the fact that the loudest and most sensational voices command the most attention. While I appreciate the fact that these voices get people interested in politics and the political process, I think that the sensationalism in today's political opinions is disenfranchising many and polarizing the country to negative degrees. Who are the best selling authors and the most listened to radio hosts? Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, Al Franken, etc. While I won't say their opinions are invalid, I think it's a sad state of affairs that because of their popularity, they get to determine much of the tone and content of the political discussion in America. Yes, they are popular because they resonate with the populace, but I fear that they take the easy road of demonizing the opponent instead of listening to them, asking questions of them, and respectfully debating them. When Air America was first announced, I audibly groaned because in my opinion, having a liberal talk radio network wouldn't help a thing. It would rally the base (which is important to a degree), but it wouldn't help the tone of the political discussion.

Prager might be an exception to the rule – I can't honestly say since I've never listened to him and the only thing I read from him was the blog post I mentioned in my first comment. If he engages in respectful debate with those he disagrees, fantastic. When I listen to, on occassion, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, or John and Ken, to name a few, the majority of callers and guests agree wholeheartedly with the hosts. When the 1 in 10 that dissent are allowed to speak, they are usually deemed irrational at best, or stupid at worst and then ridiculed once the host hangs up on them.

Re: Air America Update
by Amy at 09:45AM (PST) on Mar 24, 2005
Your point is well taken. Michael Savage is a complete disgrace and I heard John and Ken ranting about how Christians are Nazis the other day. I might have a skewed view of talk radio since I only really listen to Prager regularly, and I do think he is somewhat of an exception.

Re: Air America Update
by Micah at 06:34PM (PST) on Mar 24, 2005
It would be a very odd thing if conservatives and liberals were exactly equal in their poor behavior toward one another. It is of course true that there are miscreants on both sides.

That said, there is a very large segment within the intelligentsia of the left that believes reason to be the “slave of the passions”, as theorized by Hume (and Hobbes before him). Other luminaries of the Left are even more extreme in their rejection of reason, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, etc. It should not surprise us, then, if there is some affinity between the political Left and the philosophical Left. If reason is merely a tool of the powerful, or an ancient artifact of a bygone era, we would expect those who believe this not to employ it.

That's not to say there aren't reasonable people on the Left. There are. There's also those on the Right who reject reason (though there are more on the Right who say they believe in reason yet are nihilistic, including our SC Chief Justice). But the rejection of reason is a much bigger part of the Left's intellectual heritage than it is of the Right's.