FWIW I think we need both liberals and conservatives to have a healthy society. Conservatives (those who resist change, and want to preserve the status quo) act as an anchor for society, and liberals are a forward propelling force. I think liberals AND conservatives are capable of getting out of hand, when not opposed by enough balancing force, so it's probably good we both exist. I would prefer, however, to see more logic and less emotion in both camps- because then dialog might be possible. As it is now, there is very little hope of sustained meaningful dialog- which is too bad. Of course emotions run high over wars- it's hard for me to see the numbers of dead, and contemplate the Iraqi dead (whose numbers we don't even now, because we don't count them), and see the debt numbers skyrocket, and not be a bit emotional about it. Other people clearly have other emotions, that lead them in other directions.
I think a lot of liberals look at the world and see a gaping growing festering mess in Iraq, and conservatives see a great idea, properly executed- how do you get together people to talk who see such very different things? The outcome will be interesting- but I don't see the conservatives fessing up to a mistake even if Iraq goes bad- they'll just blame the Iraqis. If they could spin the WMD issue in their own heads, they can spin anything. |
