Those of you who know me in person know that I once held a number of views which aligned with the Democratic Party. Among other things, I thought it was usually better to raise taxes, was opposed to Ronald Reagan, was a huge fan of Jimmy Carter, favored gas rationing, etc.

As I grew older, and was trying to figure out what makes the world better, I started to do research into each topic which divides our two existing parties. And to my (initially unpleasant, frankly) surprise, I found that the more "conservative" views seemed, each time, to be -- well, if not right, than certainly better explained and more in line with the facts than the more "liberal" views.

Further, I was surprised at interpersonal aspects of the dialog. I'd ask a liberal friend or loved one why they believed so-and-so, they'd give an answer. I'd ask a conservative friend the same, and they'd give what sounded like a more complete answer. I'd carry my liberal objections back to my conservative friends, and they'd answer that, too. But when I'd do the opposite -- explained the conservative objections to my liberal friends -- I usually got anger, or accusations of bad motivation, or some other emotional response.

I found this puzzling. Needless to say, it didn't move me toward (or keep me in, depending on the topic area) the more "liberal" of the two views I was considering. And after a while these responses made me seriously question whether the person was truly interested in the topic area at all.

For example, a friend told me she was deeply concerned about unemployment and poverty in poor minority neighborhoods, and we should pass a "living wage." When I offered evidence to the contrary, she freaked out and said (contrary to her opening statement, and what I know of her) she wasn't into politics and I shouldn't tell her any more. Okay, no problem.

Yet if a "living wage" actually hurt the poor, and we truly cared about them, wouldn't you want to know that before doing that to them? Not if it meant changing one's mind, apparently. If it means abandoning my cherished political policy, well, then screw the poor: I'm no longer deeply concerned about doing whatever helps them.

I'm not just citing one example: I get this response time after time. I'm sure there are some Democrats out there who are just waiting to hear both arguments, and might be open to changing their minds, as I did. But I fear it's not the majority -- at least not the more vocal majority.

Every once in a while I wonder if I'm being too though in my mental summary of the situation. In particular, I wonder, about those who profess Christianity and claim to follow Jesus and espouse a more "progressive" stance, if they'd be willing to go where-ever truth took them. And how would they treat a brother who just happened to disagree? Perhaps we could just have a respectful conversation, based on the evidence? Would they show an open mind to contrary views and evidence? Or would they shut down any opposition?

I try this experiment periodically. You can see my latest failure here and here.

I was looking around DKos, saw a link to "ChristianDemocrat.us" and thought: Now, that might be a good perspective-builder -- a fellow Christian who just happens to disagree with my politics, not my faith. Iron sharpens iron, says the proverb. Further, he prominently displayed a cross on his front page (a good sign, in my mind) and seemed to have few comments or traffic -- so I figured, as I would in his shoes, that he'd appreciate some dialog and attention. (Even with someone who disagreed, as long as it was friendly and respectful.)

Well, you can see the result for yourself.

Besides censoring disagreement, the most surprising aspect of the encounter was the way he accused me of being a lobbyist (a corrupt figure, in his narratives) -- as if nobody could intelligently disagree with his outlook unless they were greedy and paid off.

CD: Your words lead me to believe you may be a lobbyist for the healthcare industry or some such. Seriously. [....]

Tim: If I was a lobbyist, I wouldn't devote that much time to having a conversation with one blogger, on a blog which apparently has a low readership compared to many others. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) [....]

CD: I find it interesting that in answering my question as to whether he was paid to write these responses he "answered" without answering. How very Republican of tim. I've decide to cut tim off. Any further posts from him will be deleted. [....]

That is one of the great faults of our politicians [of both parties]. We need straight and honest answers from our elected officials. If they don't give them, don't vote for them.

But he didn't actually ask if I was a lobbyist. He simply mentioned -- in passing, it seemed to me -- that I sounded like one. And even then I responded (in what I thought was a pretty clear way), though it wasn't even posed as a direct question: "Tell me, are you a lobbyist?"

And I would have been glad to have answered even more directly, once I understood he still thought I was being somehow evasive. But he apparently didn't want me to be able to clarify either.

(And no, I'm not a lobbyist, for anyone who seriously thinks that, or thought I was being deceitfully evasive. I don't make a penny off this blog or my comments elsewhere. I just actually believe this stuff.)

(And even if I *had been* a paid lobbyist, how would that have changed anything? Facts aren't tainted with guilt by association. You can't pay off a fact and make it go away or join some particular political party. The truth is what it is, and the only thing we can do, if we care about finding it, it to seriously consider the best arguments our opponents have to offer.)

(Good heavens, I'd *love* if it a lobbyist I disagreed with came to my blog, as long as he respected the rules. Imagine if you could convert or reach such an influential person -- to prick their conscience? Or at least show they refused to answer the core factual questions regarding the topic at hand?)

And ironically, he cut off his opponent for allegedly not answering questions while not, actually, answering the final, most decisive (two) questions I'd asked him, directly. Questions which, it seemed to me, clearly called into focus the potential negative impact of his plans for our healthcare system. (Part of me fears he may have done so precisely for that reason. And if evading clear, direct questions is bad, then... ?)

And please note that I've now answered his one remaining question even more clearly. I had no intention of being evasive by pointing out the absurdity of a lobbyist doing what I was doing: conversing with him.

So, there it is.

For those who know me in person, and wonder why I sometimes suspect most my opposition isn't really interested in embracing whatever will be most helpful, in their stated policy area of concern, here's another bit of evidence for you. This gives me no joy at all: I'd much rather have two parties who generally make respectable arguments. I value credible opposition, and think we're a weaker country without it.

And yes, there are certainly are some conservatives who also behave this way. But there are very few Democrats who don't, in my experience. I'd love to say otherwise (and I'd love to find them!) but, again, this is my repeated experience. (See this post.) Sadly.

And to "ChristianDemocrat" -- I'm sad that you behaved that way. This wasn't meant as a trick or set-up: I honestly thought perhaps you might be interested, as I wrote in my final post, in either correcting or at least informing me about our differences, or perhaps even in changing your mind if better contrary evidence could be presented.

But you'll never find the truth if you shoot all the messengers.

And yes, honestly, I would have loved to have reached you. Since I truly believe that the policies you're recommending will give us worse healthcare (unless we happen to be rich) of course I'd love to gain your agreement and help in trying to do whatever's best for all of us. Just like you, I want to see my fellow citizens happy and healthy.

And if I'm wrong on these purported facts, who better to correct me than a Christian opponent from the other side of the aisle -- one who seems interested in the subject matter? Then I should join you in your effort, and would be entirely willing to do so. Again, I changed before based on evidence, I can certainly change again.

And yes, I came without linking to my blog. Why should I? After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to Peter without announcing who he was, precisely because he wanted Peter to first hear what he had to say, without preconceptions.

But the sort of thing I see you doing -- "this is a bad person, therefore I don't have to think about what he's saying" -- can trap us in untrue paradigms, leaving us no way out: Because our opponents are bad, we don't have to listen to them. And because we don't have to listen to them, we've never heard a respectable argument from them. And because they've never produced a shred of truth, as far as we could hear, we can rest firmly on the conviction that our opponents must have bad motives. Repeat as needed.

This is a logical fallacy, and like all fallacious and circular arguments, this kind of reasoning does not come down to us from above, it comes instead originates from the father of all lies. It is a way of thinking which comes straight from the pit of hell, since it can be used to ensnare people in falsehoods, safe from contrary evidence. It's wrong to depend on such thinking, no matter what, no matter how right we might imagine our cause. (And we're all prone to it, lest anyone think I'm exempting myself. All the more reason to beware.)

It's true, of course, that people do have bad motives. I'm not against considering that, or even discussing it publicly. But it should never serve as a substitute or evasion for a more substantial discussion of fact. If they're factually right (or at least see things reasonably, in a way we don't personally agree with) then there's no reason to resort to alleging corruption, greed, or other sins. And, even when they do have bad motives, you can usually show that by addressing the topic, first. Truth knows her own.

I'm sorry if I made you uncomfortable on your blog. And I probably won't write much more about it here unless you choose to continue the discussion. But I need people to see that there are real differences between our positions, and even, yes, the way we argue them.