I despair of the state of public discourse.

It’s a long-standing concern, but the debate over the war in Iraq has cast it in sharp relief. I have sampled talk radio of late, and have been reading in the letters to the editor and blogging world. Much is the same, discourse directed at demonizing those with whom the speaker disagrees

The talk radio case is egregious. Rather than thinking about the serious and important implications of war, callers’ energy (for talk radio is invariably of the right) is focused on complaining about anti-war protesters. The issue here is Iraq and the war, not the protesters. There are serious, reasonable and important reasons that one can oppose this war, involving moral imperatives and evaluations of our national interest. But hating liberals is such sport, and more fun than thinking about the serious and complex issues posed by this war.

On the left, the “no blood for oil” billboard is a caricature of those who believe in the rightness of this war. There are serious, reasonable and important reasons that one can support this war, involving moral imperatives and evaluations of our national interest. But hating conservatives is such sport, and more fun than thinking about the serious and complex issues posed by this war.

Those intelligent enough to devote their energy to really deeply understanding why their opponent is sincere and reasonable are far better debaters in the long run than those who erect and then demolish one straw man after another.