Political Rumble: Is It Worth It?

I was finally able to watch the Stewart/O’Reilly Rumble last night(I know, a little late, but my schedule doesn’t allow much live time TV).  I thought the debate was interesting, and fulfilled my need for the comedic jabs that we have grown so used to from the duo.  There was something that just didn’t sit right.  Later, we were discussing how it sends such a positive message that despite their polar opposite views, they can still come together to do this.  That’s what struck me, why? Why do we need to claim that as an attribute that they are willing to talk to one another even though they’re different?  We mostly surround ourselves with like minded people and dislike constant conflict, but surely we should be able to discuss issues in a civilized manner.

That’s when my brain woke up and kicked me in the shins.  For the most part, we can’t.  Most people cannot have calm, rational, non-finger pointing discussion on opposite ends of the spectrum and in such we demonize the opposite. I’m guilty; I have a difficult time separating the person from the belief in order to have a personal relationship with them.  The reason is one of my own beliefs.  I do not think our belief system changes much over our lives.  Not that it can’t happen, but for a large portion of people, to argue some of these points is to argue about our fundamental views on the world and human nature.  That is not easy to change because it shakes the very core of how we have always viewed the world. Change in that sense is not usually going to happen over coffee.

So what’s the point of the argument? They’re probably not going to change the other person’s mind, and they’re unlikely to change the minds of those watching.  It is why if you side with one, you’re going to be more likely to sense that they are winning the debate and the other person is floundering.  We see what we want.  Can we, as an individual with our own subjective morals and views, hope to change another person’s subjective morals and views?