I find, unfortunately, that people on the left and the right look at everything differently, not just politics. Any good discussion begins with the identification of common principles, but sometimes those principles make it nearly impossible to get anywhere. For example, I am a traditionalist conservative with a premodern metaphysical outlook (i.e., traditional Catholic). Human Nature, virtue, and sometimes even my faith come into play. For a modern or postmodern, especially a relativist, there is no discussion. We literally agree on nothing. Most liberals will not even engage in a conversation which includes both religion and politics.

At first I thought I had something profound to say, but it turns out I’m just whining, so I’ll stop there.

I talk politics a lot, and have never had much trouble ‘disagreeing without being disagreeable.’

The trouble I run into though is this… its not an Olberman vs. O’Reilley debate. I sometimes find myself 15 minutes into a conversation, and the fellow I’m debating won’t accept NPR, Meet the Press, the Washington Post, or the NY Times as legitimate sources. It won’t do to give a lecture on the basic tenets of journalism, point out that ‘the facts have a liberal bias’ and tear down Fox news (yet again).

I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to debate like a gentleman, make sure you’re debating a gentleman, else just walk away.