If I get an argument about times changing or these being old, dead, white guys, I point to Powell v. McCormack (1967), in which the SCOTUS stated that the Constitution and amendments are to be interpreted so as to give them the meaning intended by the framers.

Few people are then able to argue against my points, and begin with insults and name-calling, to which I reply, “It has been said that those who can argue using facts and logic, do so. Those who cannot argue using facts and logic insult their opponents.” Very few respond after that.

I may have an unfair advantage, though. Aside from following politics since before my age reached double digits, and aside from seemingly being one of very few who are truly familiar with the writings of the founding fathers, Sidney and Locke, as an attorney, I am, according to my wife a professional arguer. Name-calling, innuendo, and the like will get a person nowhere in a courtroom.

Secondly, and more importantly, a lot of people get locked into a particular position and never revisit why they held that position to begin with. All too often people are inflexible in their thinking, and tend to miss or discount new information which may show flaws in their understanding. One will never make the world a better place, nor will they improve the lot of their posterity, if they are irreconcilably stagnant in their thoughts and awareness.

I just wish that politicians of the day could debate with some sense of civility.

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.