Political Dialogue in the Arena

I read a blog recently listing (and explaining) the different types of conservatives. This list included "cultural" conservatives, "fiscal" conservatives, "social" conservatives, etc. What I found interesting was that all of the types listed were defined by their different policy objectives. Some were defined by their stand on issues of immigration, some by fiscal policies they preferred, still others by their cultural objectives. Presumably, the different types of liberals could be categorized similarly; "social" liberals, "economic" liberals, etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that I believe is wrong with political discourse in this country. When political discourse begins with conclusions, e.g. abortion should be legal, or taxes should be cut, there is little room for discussion. Discussion should result in conclusions, not begin with them. When was the last time anyone heard a thoughtful, rational discussion over abortion? I cannot recall ever hearing one; unless one considers the absence of shouting and insults a thoughtful, rational discussion. This is because when people enter the discussion, their minds are already made up and they are determined to hold on to their conclusions at all costs.

If anyone has watched a political discussion on a Sunday morning talk show, it is evident that only rarely, if ever, do the participants enter the discussion with an open mind. Their objective, more often than not, is to "win" the discussion over their opponents, rather than explore or elucidate and issue. "Winning" in this context means persuading the listener that they are right and their opponent is wrong. However polite the conversation might be, it always comes down to who is right and who is wrong. Has any of the panelists ever changed their mind as a result of these discussions?

I believe this is why people are so reluctant to publicly discuss controversial issues and would rather yell and posture. The fear is that their message might be lost against the clamor and indignation of their opponent, or that their calmness and rationality might be construed as a lack of conviction. Calm, deliberative discussions do still occur. I have even had a few of them. But they occur outside the glare of of the media. Like gladiators who might share a laugh or express friendship for one another while waiting their turn to fight in the arena, once they enter the arena, their objective is to win.